I am so glad that there is a place such as this for all the discussions
on this subject! I for one love to read all of the different viewpoints.
I am so glad that we all realise we all have different viewpoints and
that none of our posts are meant to be hateful to anyone, but to the
situation at hand! If it werent for the stupid people in the world,
rescue would be out of business and millions of animals would
not be gassed every month.
EDIT: This was intended as a reply to the reply to Cassie's post--dont know how/why it ended up up here on top of those--
No, this is not the same ordinance as NH, but don't completely disregard NH in this argument either. People had similar arguments against the proposed NH Legislation way back then too. "It won't work" "You can't make us do it" " You can't be out policing this" etc. Same in Toronto. But both took approaches that didn't quite mandate via statute or ordinance, but DID pretty much mandate effectively. When you pair ENFORCED (note: key word) DIFFERENTIAL (note: another key word) pet licensing with access to truly low cost spay/neuter surgeries you can get the job done long term (note: no short term/quick fix available to this problem). So if Dallas wants to disregard this ordinance proposal and go with a licensing scheme like these other places used, feel free. In Toronto, you can pay $25 to license your dog if its fixed, and $60 to license your dog if its not. Thats YEARLY. If you don't license your dog in any given year, you pay a fine of $240. If you don't pay the fine, and get summoned to court its $5000.00. Add to that you can get your pet fixed at the cities low cost clinics for <$50. Again, ENFORCED. In NH they ticket regularly for failure to license your pet, and most locations have similar differentials on the license fees. If you're low income (statistically the most likely NOT to fix their pets, for obvious reasons $$$), you have access to surgery that will cost you LESS than the cost of the differential in the next two years (in many places just this year). And you don't register, you DO get fined. Lots of bigger cities are considering these mandates because effectively it will achieve the same thing with smaller effort on the part of the government-- MOST will abide by the ordinance, some will not, but there will actually be very little "policing" done on this it will simply be a gamble if you choose not to comply. It will take far less effort than enforcing licensing and it WILL eventually (after the intial increase in euths) reduce them down. But you'll never have full compliance with anything, but the bulk of people ARE law abiding citizens and will comply because they're told they have to.
How different is this REALLY to mandating rabies vaccinations? Still not everyone complies, those that don't want to do them either have to jump through hoops to be exempt (by titer tests, etc) OR they risk paying the fine if/when they're caught.
This is really what we come down to. Cities, states, counties and towns have ignored this issue and the divide between the "you can't make me do it" and the "hey you need to make everyone do it" for so long that the problem has blown out up to unmanageble proportion. We spend millions and millions of dollars to kill animals every year and many jurisdications are kind of figuring out "HOLY $^*&! We're spending millions of dollars on this" and they don't know what to do with it.
And I'm afraid I don't quite buy into the "mandatory never works" argument. Lots of things are mandatory, and we've made mandatory to deal with financial issues or saving lives/quality of life issues in this country that DO work for the purpose they were passed. Perfectly, no, and i wouldnt think that's expected.
Hmmm....let's see....all the things I'm forced to do by virtue of the rule of law that i dont think i should have to do because it IS a free country after all, and i do have my rights, right? Hmm. Well I have to register my car and carry insurance on it. That sucks pretty much, I'm charged out the ear for car insurance that I never use (because they'll rip me off even more if i make a claim) and I pay every year the state to own my car. Well who the heck's idea was that? Why am I required to do it? Because a)it raises money to address issues that the government needs to address and b)it mandates personal accountability to my fellow citizens for my choice to own and drive a vehicle. Those who don't pay for those things aren't allowed to drive them, and if they do without following the law, they get FINED AND HAVE TO PAY.
I also have to mow my lawn, even though i own it and i'd be just fine with it sky high, the city says NO DEAL, you must keep your lawn mowed. Oh and I can't dump my garbage out on my lawn either (why NOT, it's my property??!! maybe i LIKE a front yard garbage dump, after all i own the garbage and the lawn, right?)
Not all that many years ago there were furious arguments about the infringement of personal liberty that was about to forced upon us by the ridiculous notion of the mandatory requirement of wearing a seatbelt. Anyone of my age surely remembers this (didnt everyone have to have a 'debate' in jr. high pro vs. con on seatbelt legislation??). And people DO still have a choice, after all, they can wear it and abide by the law, or they can disregard the law and PAY the consequences when they get caught (or when they get thrown from a car and die). And look where its brought us in these years-- the MANDATORY legislation effected change of habit and behavior over the course of the years (and it achieved its goal in the reduction of lives lost in car accidents, and the cost of managing debilitation and medical care to injuries caused by accidents w/out seatbelts). There will always be non-abiders, and there will always be those who will simply disregard the law because its a free country right?
But most legislation has its flaws, and fails in some regard to do what it was intended, or it mis-fires and captures someone within that wasnt really contemplated to be within its reach or mis-fires and misses bigtime on someone it should've captured but doesn't. But every time a law is proposed, the goal is to address a problem in the community in a manner most likely to have the biggest impact with the least invasion into peoples liberties, but sometimes the issue has become so large already that its hard to do it in smaller increments to achieve the goal-- if we had not ignored the problem for so many years and let it grow into the complete disgusting mess it is now maybe we could've taken a smaller step to nicely encourage people. We didn't though and here we are.
My own ordinance is a mandatory registration of your animal, altered or not. There's no fine involved at all. Those who don't want to s/n can "opt out" by volunteering with animal control/animal services for just 20 hours a year. Oh, but no doggie walking or kitty brushing involved. The "opt out" service includes only one option--serving as 'holder' in a shelter kill room (yea, we stopped calling them nice names like 'pts room' or 'euthanasia room'--lets call them what they are), they can secure the animals while they struggle to escape whats coming. Let these people be experience the fear you see in the animals, let them experience the guilt for having received a kiss accompanied by puppy eyes when we lie to them and tell them 'it's alright' while we hold them.
What i find here is that the bulk of people who oppose these ordinances have never personally had to endure a morning that shelter workers endure morning after morning; many have never even stepped foot in a shelter. Here the most vocal group against mandatory S/N is the local AKC Club. The president of the club made an &#$* of herself when she wrote a letter to the editor opposing any/all efforts to require any sort of spay/neuter for any reason and in any way. "After all" she wrote "we all well know that its not the cute adoptable puppies and kittens that end up in shelters, its older throwaways with issues most of the time". What an idiot. I just sent her a big spanking mailer with 30 days worth of intake kennel cards with photos for each and every of 981 animals that came into the shelter, more than 60% of which was under the age of 4 months of age. The included letter invites her to come to the shelter herself to confirm the accuracy of her published letter.
Bottom line, I dont think its a perfect ordinance, but we have to do something. This will catch the bulk of animals just out of the fact that the majority of law abiding citizens will comply. The laws in this country are never meant to simply infringe on an individuals rights, but we have long been willign to do so when there is a greater good served. (and I'm sick of paying my tax money to pay for some idiot to continue having "oops" litters that the shelters have to kill every year, for gosh sakes-- at least make those with unaltered animals carry the bulk of the burden for cost of pet overpopulation).
...and I think you know your stuff! I like your examples and comparisions. I'm glad it ended up at the top:) I think others (everyone) has made really great points as well. BUT, I'd just like to add that I and many who oppose this believe the answer lies in in the voluntary models like NH and not mandatory including many pet over population gurus and shelter/ASPCA top leaders:) But again, I think you make excellent points about both and I'm glad I had the chance to read it!
First of all, I don't see why people are so mad unless they haven't actually read the proposal. There is an exemption for dogs that compete in agility, obedience, conformation, or other dog sports without paying the $500 license fee. The fee only goes into effect if you are breeding the dog or if it gets out and gets to animal control.
I do a lot of vet work for places that offer low cost, and at certain times no cost spay neuter services. The main problem is that a lot of people just wont do it.
The areas I work in are low-income, but they can usually afford the services offered. The issue at hand is in these places it is often considered to be "not cool" to neuter your pet. I give my spay neuter speech to guys in to get their dog their rabies shot (because that is all they will get, often because they already got a city citation) and I either get a "No", "H*ll No", or a non-commital head nod that means they have no intention of listening to me. Most of these guys have chihuahuas or pit bulls/pit mixes. Being one who LOVES pits and hates the idea of breed specific legislation, it sickens me. These guys are NOT going to fix their dogs unless they have to. Many of them don't see the point of having the dog if its spayed or neutered. A typical pit has a litter of 8 puppies, give or take (I think 6-13 is pretty common) so you can imagine how quickly that builds up.
So are euthanisia rates going to skyrocket? absolutely. It is going to look horrible for the first year or so. A lot of people will not claim their dogs from the city shelters. Not because they can't afford the low cost spay or neuter to get them out, but because these weren't pets in the first place- just dogs that happened to live in their yards. And they definitly don't want them if they can't breed them.
And probably some good people who really did care about their dogs will end up in some comprimising situations. I can't deny that for a moment.
But at this point we are euthanizing an insane amount of dogs daily just in Dallas alone. We have voluntary spay neuter programs in place. SPCA puts out mailers every time they offer free spays and neuters to people in certain zip codes. It still doesn't change.
I hate mandating things too, but I really hate to see all the dogs chained up in some of the cruddier neighborhoods die slow deaths of intestinal parasites and infected uteruses. I hate how the people who breed rotteilers and pits and other big dogs manage to breed gajillions of these dogs. I hate how then those poor hormone filled intact dogs end up going stir crazy at the end of a leash or in a small kennel area, then get out one day and end up hurting some kid. Or some kid wanders into a backyard with a bunch of intact dogs and worse yet a litter of pups. I am tired of working at a shelter and getting in all the dogs that were "just animals" to someone.
Will this proposal fix all of that? I'm sure not, but I think drastic times call for drastic measures. This may not be perfect, but it is a start. No one is going to do house to house raids for unneutered pets. This is just another tool to get pets away from people who don't intend to care for them, and prevent them from going to people who just want to make a cheap buck off of their puppies.
...and I have read the proposed ordidnance many times. I'm happy to see you have also. People who oppose this don't oppose animal welfare laws at all! What is opposed is the implimentation of programs that have failed miserably in other placesresulting in greater problems. There are successful programs that can be modeled. PLEASE don't compare Dallas' voluntary s/n program to New Hampshires OMG!!!! Please read this discussion on the aspca site and look into NH program. http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/livechatwithledyvankavage/forum/top... Believe me the ASPCA is is well informed and against mandatory programs for good reason.
The ordinance states cat and dog show owners can apply for waiver from s/n....not 'anyone' who's dog competes in agility, obedience, conformation, or other dog sport. (please, correct me if I'm wrong...I've NEVER seen that stated in the ordidnace...maybe it's been revised already)????
Regarding Pit Bulls. The ordidnace states only purebreed dogs can be registered with a national registry can receive permits to breed. AND only breeds the director approves. Most people feel it would have only been worded this way to exclude certain breeds including Pit Bulls.
Anyway, Cassie, I can't imagine the frustration being on the front lines of education. Can't we just euthanize the ignorant people? (just kidding...kinda) Maybe someone can post an example of a successful mandatory s/n program?
Pet over population is a massive, complex problem. Statics say, most dogs go through three owners in their lifetime and they are considered the lucky ones because their not killed. I understand PETA's stance against the ownership of animals period because of statistics like that (although I don't agree).
...people actively engaged in this issue. I think it is really important to view both sides, read the ordinance and understand why there is such a great divide amoung intelligent animal lovers and it seems like that is just what you'll have been doing:) NOBODY disagrees with the horror occuring everyday in shelters and there IS a massive pet over population problem. NOBODY disagrees that people need to fix pets that are not part of a responsible breeding program. That is not what responsible pet lovers are against. (much like people against universal health care are NOT against children and adults having access to healthcare). Fight for what you believe in and remember the best debaters know their opponents views at least as well as their own. I'm on the fence personally but do feel this has a snowballs chance....I don't want it to end if it doesn't pass either. I think there is better a solution which will take both sides coming together (minus the person opposing because she thinks dogs should be breed because their cute).
...we're not like a lot of other rescue groups. We're very supportive of reputable breeders. But our definition of a reputable breeder is clearly defined: they show their dogs in confirmation rings, they work hard to better the health and temperament of the breed and therefore they spend more money in genetic and health testing than they might make off the pups they produce, and - most importantly - they make each person who buys one of their puppies sign a contract that says the new guardian will return the dog - regardless of the dog's age - to the breeder if the person can't care for the animal (because a reputable breeder cannot imagine one of their animals ending up in a shelter). Sadly, Texas has NOT ONE reputable Great Dane breeder right now.
You might also be surprised to learn that some of our founding members have more than fifteen years of rescue work under their belts...and because of the well-thought-out foundation they set when they formed this group, we have been able to save over 1,000 Great Danes in about seven years. Now that number by itself - one THOUSAND lives saved from just one, not-so-popular giant breed of dog - says a lot about the state of unwanted animals in this area. We have a lawyer and veterinarian on our Board of Directors and a lawyer on our Advisory Board. Both lawyers also happen to be founding members of GDRNT (there's a reason our adoption process is only slightly less invasive than adopting a human child!). ;-)
All of that is to say - we don't support issues without understanding them fully and we're not a hyper-emotional group (okay, there are times that each one of us gets really caught up in a particular issue - but there are plenty of people with sound minds and lots of experience and logical thinking to pull whoever happens to be going off the emotional track back in line). Nothing is put on the front page without approval from our Board of Directors and our Advisory Board - and we don't take the support of legislation lightly.
You won't get flamed on our discussion board (well, there was that one time I got really upset when someone, who - in hindsight - was probably just a troll, promoted hitting a dog during training...but that was an exception). You will find a lot of conscientious pet guardians who work hard to do right by the animals in the direst of situations...those facing a euthanasia needle in the back room at kill shelter.
And the biggest surprise? We enjoy a good debate - because we understand that it's through conversations like these that people can learn the most.
Sadly, I'm not surprised by the numbers of unwanted animals and the tragic reality occuring in sheltrs, but it does make me sick. Since I can remember I've been in and out of shelters with my mom who spent her adult life..>30 yrs volunteering in shelters/ rescues both in NYC and FL. I went a different direction with my adult life as part of movement challangeing the state of FL and successfully moving adult individuals with disabilities out of state institutions into independent homes advocating for their humane treatment and rights. But that really has nothing to do with this ordinance.
The breeder permit clause requires that dogs are regisitered with a national registry; The American Kennel club has already declared it adamently opposes this ordinance. How successful do you think this ordinance can be when the registers do not support it?
Referring to Great Danes alone, many breed advocates feel strongly they should not be fixed until 9-12 months including a couple that I have been directed from this site to for health information. A responsible breeder cannot determine if a dog is an ideal candidate for breeding at 4 months...it would be irresponsible to make a determination at four months and would place an unfair financial burden on breeders to pay $500 for each dog being evaluated. I'm not sure how many breeders in the area would care to continue but this ordidnance DOES NOT stop out of state sales or auctions so you'll still have the same problems. Not to mention the same people who currently just ignore the law. My pups are almost five months and my vet wants to wait atleast another month or so to fix them because of their rough start and immune system concerns. This ordinance has no provisions for my situation which is not unusual. This ordidnace would make me choose between fines and my dogs health...do you think this ordidance would make it easier or more difficult for dogs like mine to find homes?
Take a look at the commission responible fo drafting the ordidance like, Robert Trimble. In a published article, Trimble described himself as a former “animal abuser,” and his description says a lot about what he now thinks abuse is. “I’m a former animal abuser,” Trimble says. “I used to own racehorses, raise roping steers, hunt and eat meat.” Now, Trimble describes himself as a vegan vegetarian, deplores traditional farming and ranching, and agrees with the of opposition to breeding animals, hunting, rodeos and competing with horses and supports the 'no birth' campaign to end the breeding of all pets considering pet ownership 'slavery'. Are you sure you are very supportive of reputable breeders?? (by the way, your definition of reputable is what many advocate...why not make THAT the ordinance)?
Yes, something should be done...but is this really it? Do you really have to 'settle' because it is atleast something? This council should have included the involvement of vets, reputable breeders, working/sport /companion dog clubs and national/local registers, rescues and shelters in the development of this ordidnace. Like i said, I don't think this will pass but I hope it doesn't end and that a round table discussion involving the above are represented in drafting another ordinance.
By the way, I thank everyone for being kind and respectful to me in this discussion...i realize I'm the odd duck here and I do repect your views as well. I think this a wonderful site and I have gotten excellent advice from many of you regarding my pups, Barnum and Bailey. Fight for what you believe in..it's important to advocate and give a voice to those don't have one...whatever your view.
I don't have much time to write this - and I'll likely come back and edit it for clarification, but I want to get a couple of thoughts out there before my next appointment:
I would be more apt to listen to the AKC if Texas had even one reputable Great Dane breeder. But we don't.
New Hampshire, as a state, has a completely different mindset than Texas. I won't go into the specifics here because I don't want this thread to get off track - but Texas and New Hampshire are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to being socially responsible. (I don't mean that as a slam to Texas - I'm a firm believer that people should be responsible for themselves, but I'm much more socially liberal when it comes to those beings that can't speak/do for themselves...animals, children, the invalid....that's where my bleeding heart starts pumping overtime)
Plus, in Texas, animal welfare laws are all tied up in livestock (cattle and ranching) laws. We have a much, much, much harder task in front of us because cattle ranchers have A LOT of money to pay for lobbyists.
suzannehigbee said: "Like i said, I don't think this will pass but I hope it doesn't end and that a round table discussion involving the above are represented in drafting another ordinance."
That's exactly why the petition should be signed. I doubt any of us believe it will pass with this go 'round - but if no one signs the petition, then it's quite possible this will die....and our goal is to keep the convesation going so the ordinance can be shaped into something that really works.
There are little changes happening all over the state - just one example is Fort Worth, which recently implemented laws banning the chaining of dogs and you can get in serious trouble for leaving your pet inside a hot car now. There's a tide starting to swell and I believe it's important for us to ride this wave while we can and make as many well-thought-out changes while we can.
...I don't know you personally, Jamie, but I know from this site you are saving lives and fight to give dogs a chance in way most don't (including myself) by giving so much of yourself. I also know what you mean about the mind set some people have about animals. I lived in rural SW FL and questioned a neighbor about her dog who had two liters in a year and constantly complained about it. I asked her if I could take the dog to town and get the dog fixed...she said bullets were cheaper! Even after I offered to pay she would not allow me to take the dog in. I called animal control and they said they had no authority to remove the dog. The pet over population includes so many factors it's overwhelming
I do believe Dallas can be a model for the state and other states as well. What kinda model is the question...will it be a postive model others will want to repeat or a divicive failure making others hesitant to do anything. I know some people are chosing not to sign this petition opposed to the ordidance as written and are rather personally drafting letters to the council. I feel the worst thing would be people not doing anything. Here a link with a discussion about voluntary vs mandatory spay/neuter programs I hope everyone will read.
if you agree with this type of legislation, please feel free to voice you opinion in an on-line discussion which was reported in the Parade magazine. so far 77% of people DISAGREE with the legislation. one of the comments they published said people should be able to breed their pets if they think they're cute.
if we get some intelligent comments going, maybe this will reach a wider audience and we can make other states aware of the benefits this type of law would bring.
here's the website: http://www.parade.com/pets/pet-chat/archive/pc_0139.html
Lady Dane - the petition is to support an ordinance (sort of like a law) that would require owners to spay or neuter their pets (some people call it getting their pets 'fixed'). People who didn't get their pets fixed would get a ticket and would have to pay a fine. The hope is that fewer animals will be born accidentally and fewer animals will be born to backyard breeders - and that means fewer homeless, unwanted animals in kill shelters.
suzannehigbee - being a closet Libertarian, this sort of governmental interference would normally make my hackles stand on end. But in this case, I'm all for anything that will make people think twice before they bring one more animal into this world. Is this the perfect answer? No. And I don't expect it to solve all the overpopulation problems. But, it is a start. And a start is what's needed.
Ten years ago, New Hampshire started down this same exact path. Today they have empty animal shelters. No lie. Ronda, a founding member of GDRNT and former member of our board of directors, now runs an animal shelter in Alabama. She sends 50-70 animals each month to New Hampshire. Animals that might have been euthanized because of overcrowding at her shelter are quickly adopted at her ‘sister’ shelters in NH. The fantastic thing is that they often have more volunteers than they have dogs. That means they have the manpower to leash walk each dog 3-4 times a day, work on basic training and do thorough evaluations of each animal – which is unheard of in Texas shelters.
This happened because New Hampshire has some of the strictest spay/neuter laws in the U.S. and they actively enforce their animal neglect/cruelty laws. Again, it took them ten years to get to this point, even after powerful state legislation went into place. Ten years is a long time and Texas is a much bigger state than New Hampshire, but at least we know it can be done.
but it VERY different then what Dallas is attempting. New Hampshire has a VOLUNTARY spay/nueter program offering low cost services that are available to everyone. This is model that should be repeated. Look into it and compare it to the Dallas ordidance...you CAN'T compare them.
NH and TX, or more general New England and the South are miles apart. New England does not have a dog/cat overpopulation problem; they are actually adopting pets from other parts of the country where people have not reached that level of pet sophistication (for lack of better word). Passing VOLUNTARY measures and waiting for the general population to get educated WILL result in hundreds of thousands of euthanized pets for many years to come (to put it conservatively). Education in the South has not managed to put a dent on dog fighting or incidences of gross cruelty to pets; what makes you believe it will be effective for more "mundane" things like having cute puppies by the ton.
Not only should we pass this neuter/spay ordinance, but we should also make breeding a licensed business subject to citi inspections.
...northern states to sounthern states. Sad but true. But even northern states have had massive pet over population issues which is why they implemented very strict LAWS that were based on VOLUNTARY programs....with success. dallas does not even need to be pioneer in this movement because we have models to evaluate that have been STUDIED by shelters and pet overpopulaton specialists! When NH reports a 70% reducation in euth rates you can't say that they never had a problem to condend with in the first place. You can ask, 'how did they do to get there'? Dallas has NOT EVER attempted to follow these succesful models. As I agree that northern states have made leaps and bounds with successful programs that make us here is the south looks like backwards, uneducated idiots, I don't think it has to be this way. I do think the social climate about animal welfare can to lifted in the same way it has in the north. Or does the sun make us more stupid here? I'll agree here in Texas we are WAY behind the animal welfare movement. I will NOT agree that Texans are incapable of elevating. The good news is WE DON"T have to be pioneers! IT'S been tried ,tested and studied by those that did take on the challanges YEARS ago! We need to move foward and not back. Please find me and example of a successful MANDATORY s/n program.
As it was pointed out, with differential fees the difference between Mandatory and Voluntary could really blur, although I understand mandatory evoking some negative feelings. I wish it were called something else like "controlled s/n".
I want to dispell some notions however:
-mandatory is not the same as universal. We can have all the exceptions that are reasonable and I am not arguing that the ordinance proposal as it stands could not be amended/improved.
- mandatory does not mean that the spay/neuter fees will be higher compared to a voluntary approach. Market forces always play so much better the larger the scale, so s/n fees could conceivably be lower in a mandatory program.
Let me list my "favourite" mandate, that is, the property tax, because it is so instructive. We all pay property tax (a mandate) that covers education (universal mandate), and I guess everyone is fine with this. It also covers Parkland, for those that unfortunately cannot afford, and for those that can but do not want a healthcare insurance (so mandate that covers voluntary exemptions). And then it covers city services like animal control where my money is being used to euthanize thousands of animals per year, and believe me that makes me extremely mad.
So, I see your point, and sure we can work to pass a better ordinance. But not at the expense of killing this one first, we can improve it after we've passed something. If this does not fly this time, it may be a while before the city takes up the issue again, and while that happens the killing goes on and on unabated.
"Please find me an(d) example of a successful MANDATORY s/n program.
Okay. Santa Cruz County California instituted a mandatory spay/neuter program in 1995 and their intake and kill numbers decreased consistently. Critics argued in 2006 that it wasnt working anymore when they showed a spike in intake in 2004 and 2005. That argument was debunked when they realized that in 2004 the county had agreed to take on another cities animal control intake thus changing their intake jurisdiction-- with the agreement that when they took them on, the city they took on had to also implement the mandatory program. From 2005 forward, the numbers continue to decline despite population increases. They also continue to decline in the rural city that they took over in 2004.
So there an example for you.
Another note. NH is not always the best comparison-- let's not forget that at the peak of their animal overpopulation issues they were only (i use that term loosely, mind you) killing around 11500-12500 animals annual in the entire state and their kill ratio even then was lower than much of the nation. Also NH has NOT been a complete success with the voluntary programming as they STILL have a BIG cat overpopulation problem. One of the small shelters we work with in NH that in the year of 2006 had a monthly average of TWO dogs in it at a time, shelters hundreds of cats at a time and they continue to euthanize cats for space in early summer (kitten season). From what I understand, mandatory cat s/n has been contemplated there OR mandatory leash law for cats (keep it inside or contained, in other words), though they've not moved forward with either of these.
Don't get me wrong, I could actually be pursuaded to go with a voluntary program if it was done right (with differential licensing AND licensing enforcement, AND leash laws were strictly enforced, AND the city or state was coughing up the money to subsidize spay/neuters down to $10 or less for low income families and sliding scale after that) When you're using voluntary programs as the example, we have to seriously consider whether all the elements can come together in our location-- if it can't the choice may be down to mandatory or nothing.
Okay, i'm done for now. I'm going to contemplate all the things I would do if instead of mandatory government restrictions I had the choice of voluntarily complying or choosing to desregard. I'll start with my foiled plans to have a tiger living in my backyard.
...I am happy to hear your opinion, and grateful you have informed me about Santa Cuz, CA! You educated me (as others have) and I appreciate that:) I'll check it out, and of course, I will post remarks after I have!
Of course, there will be statements against Santa Cruz...but above is AN EXAMPLE of a mandatory s/n model! Check it out! That is the first (I read tons on the subject) positive example I've seen. Thank you for leading me to it:)
I think anyone that has walked in the back "non-public" part of a city shelter and had to look the dogs in the eye that are going to be killed just due to there being too many, would be in support of this. Their faces haunt you for life. There are just too many. 500 a DAY are killed in DFW alone. This is a solution for that and I am for it.
I realize I may be stiring up a hornets nest here and I think that everyone agrees we have a pet over population problem. We also have unscrupulous breeders and pet owners. I'm just not so sure that this ordiance is the answer. It reminds me of gun control/bans...who does it actually hurt/affect? (I'm not comparing guns to lives but rather what cruel and unscrupulous people do with both).Before signing the petition get all the info THEN decide. So many places just post the petition asking for spay/neuter ordiance but this oridiance is much more detailed than that. There are parts I strongly agree with but I have mixed feelings on others. I think about all the puppy mills just outside Dallas and I think oridance would just make their day:(
I myself signed this petition. i do not write as nicely as Jamie does but here goes:
My facts are simple..........
These people are wanting non euthanasia shelters. fine great. Who is going to pay for it? I would love to see this happen, but until areas such as DFW gets a handle on all the unwanted animals this is not a reality.
Leash laws? The police so not have the manpower to give tickets to stupid people lets face it. Increasing the police force is definitely needed, but I am sure that increase can be put to better use.
Now we have the breeders. I would guess that 95% of the breeders we have here are backyard breeders that do NOT care where those puppies end up. Alls they care about is that they get $400 for fluffy. Do they pay taxes on selling Fluffy as income? Nooooo. Do they care that Fluffy's mother had 8 pups and those 8 pups can each have a litter in another year? No. Ok so now we have 64 pups out there and lets face it, they are owned by people that think they are resonsible pet owners. How many of those pups will have mixed litters within a year? Lets not forget that the males can make wayyyy more puppies than the females can within a year! So at the end of the year where are all of those mixed pups going to end up and what will their fate be?
Yes I think we definitely need this to get a handle on the pet overpopulation. Not everyone is as smart as we are lets face it. I sit here every day and look at all of the pleas from the animal shelters that come via email for placement of these unwanted pets and it totally kills me. There are not enough rescues, not enough foster homes out there. Animal rescue groups right now are the best case senario right now for these unwanted furbabies and that totally sucks because there are not enough of us. They do not have deep pockets and they can not save them all. Please don't think I am talking about Great Danes but about the mixes which is what made me sign this petition.
This ordinance is the 1st step in obtaining the types of shelters we all want. That is not going to happen until we get a handle on the pet over population in the area!
Everyones Comments
I am so glad that there is a place such as this for all the discussions
on this subject! I for one love to read all of the different viewpoints.
I am so glad that we all realise we all have different viewpoints and
that none of our posts are meant to be hateful to anyone, but to the
situation at hand! If it werent for the stupid people in the world,
rescue would be out of business and millions of animals would
not be gassed every month.
Susan
Meet & Greet Coordinator
Not quite on point
EDIT: This was intended as a reply to the reply to Cassie's post--dont know how/why it ended up up here on top of those--
No, this is not the same ordinance as NH, but don't completely disregard NH in this argument either. People had similar arguments against the proposed NH Legislation way back then too. "It won't work" "You can't make us do it" " You can't be out policing this" etc. Same in Toronto. But both took approaches that didn't quite mandate via statute or ordinance, but DID pretty much mandate effectively. When you pair ENFORCED (note: key word) DIFFERENTIAL (note: another key word) pet licensing with access to truly low cost spay/neuter surgeries you can get the job done long term (note: no short term/quick fix available to this problem). So if Dallas wants to disregard this ordinance proposal and go with a licensing scheme like these other places used, feel free. In Toronto, you can pay $25 to license your dog if its fixed, and $60 to license your dog if its not. Thats YEARLY. If you don't license your dog in any given year, you pay a fine of $240. If you don't pay the fine, and get summoned to court its $5000.00. Add to that you can get your pet fixed at the cities low cost clinics for <$50. Again, ENFORCED. In NH they ticket regularly for failure to license your pet, and most locations have similar differentials on the license fees. If you're low income (statistically the most likely NOT to fix their pets, for obvious reasons $$$), you have access to surgery that will cost you LESS than the cost of the differential in the next two years (in many places just this year). And you don't register, you DO get fined. Lots of bigger cities are considering these mandates because effectively it will achieve the same thing with smaller effort on the part of the government-- MOST will abide by the ordinance, some will not, but there will actually be very little "policing" done on this it will simply be a gamble if you choose not to comply. It will take far less effort than enforcing licensing and it WILL eventually (after the intial increase in euths) reduce them down. But you'll never have full compliance with anything, but the bulk of people ARE law abiding citizens and will comply because they're told they have to.
How different is this REALLY to mandating rabies vaccinations? Still not everyone complies, those that don't want to do them either have to jump through hoops to be exempt (by titer tests, etc) OR they risk paying the fine if/when they're caught.
This is really what we come down to. Cities, states, counties and towns have ignored this issue and the divide between the "you can't make me do it" and the "hey you need to make everyone do it" for so long that the problem has blown out up to unmanageble proportion. We spend millions and millions of dollars to kill animals every year and many jurisdications are kind of figuring out "HOLY $^*&! We're spending millions of dollars on this" and they don't know what to do with it.
And I'm afraid I don't quite buy into the "mandatory never works" argument. Lots of things are mandatory, and we've made mandatory to deal with financial issues or saving lives/quality of life issues in this country that DO work for the purpose they were passed. Perfectly, no, and i wouldnt think that's expected.
Hmmm....let's see....all the things I'm forced to do by virtue of the rule of law that i dont think i should have to do because it IS a free country after all, and i do have my rights, right? Hmm. Well I have to register my car and carry insurance on it. That sucks pretty much, I'm charged out the ear for car insurance that I never use (because they'll rip me off even more if i make a claim) and I pay every year the state to own my car. Well who the heck's idea was that? Why am I required to do it? Because a)it raises money to address issues that the government needs to address and b)it mandates personal accountability to my fellow citizens for my choice to own and drive a vehicle. Those who don't pay for those things aren't allowed to drive them, and if they do without following the law, they get FINED AND HAVE TO PAY.
I also have to mow my lawn, even though i own it and i'd be just fine with it sky high, the city says NO DEAL, you must keep your lawn mowed. Oh and I can't dump my garbage out on my lawn either (why NOT, it's my property??!! maybe i LIKE a front yard garbage dump, after all i own the garbage and the lawn, right?)
Not all that many years ago there were furious arguments about the infringement of personal liberty that was about to forced upon us by the ridiculous notion of the mandatory requirement of wearing a seatbelt. Anyone of my age surely remembers this (didnt everyone have to have a 'debate' in jr. high pro vs. con on seatbelt legislation??). And people DO still have a choice, after all, they can wear it and abide by the law, or they can disregard the law and PAY the consequences when they get caught (or when they get thrown from a car and die). And look where its brought us in these years-- the MANDATORY legislation effected change of habit and behavior over the course of the years (and it achieved its goal in the reduction of lives lost in car accidents, and the cost of managing debilitation and medical care to injuries caused by accidents w/out seatbelts). There will always be non-abiders, and there will always be those who will simply disregard the law because its a free country right?
But most legislation has its flaws, and fails in some regard to do what it was intended, or it mis-fires and captures someone within that wasnt really contemplated to be within its reach or mis-fires and misses bigtime on someone it should've captured but doesn't. But every time a law is proposed, the goal is to address a problem in the community in a manner most likely to have the biggest impact with the least invasion into peoples liberties, but sometimes the issue has become so large already that its hard to do it in smaller increments to achieve the goal-- if we had not ignored the problem for so many years and let it grow into the complete disgusting mess it is now maybe we could've taken a smaller step to nicely encourage people. We didn't though and here we are.
My own ordinance is a mandatory registration of your animal, altered or not. There's no fine involved at all. Those who don't want to s/n can "opt out" by volunteering with animal control/animal services for just 20 hours a year. Oh, but no doggie walking or kitty brushing involved. The "opt out" service includes only one option--serving as 'holder' in a shelter kill room (yea, we stopped calling them nice names like 'pts room' or 'euthanasia room'--lets call them what they are), they can secure the animals while they struggle to escape whats coming. Let these people be experience the fear you see in the animals, let them experience the guilt for having received a kiss accompanied by puppy eyes when we lie to them and tell them 'it's alright' while we hold them.
What i find here is that the bulk of people who oppose these ordinances have never personally had to endure a morning that shelter workers endure morning after morning; many have never even stepped foot in a shelter. Here the most vocal group against mandatory S/N is the local AKC Club. The president of the club made an &#$* of herself when she wrote a letter to the editor opposing any/all efforts to require any sort of spay/neuter for any reason and in any way. "After all" she wrote "we all well know that its not the cute adoptable puppies and kittens that end up in shelters, its older throwaways with issues most of the time". What an idiot. I just sent her a big spanking mailer with 30 days worth of intake kennel cards with photos for each and every of 981 animals that came into the shelter, more than 60% of which was under the age of 4 months of age. The included letter invites her to come to the shelter herself to confirm the accuracy of her published letter.
Bottom line, I dont think its a perfect ordinance, but we have to do something. This will catch the bulk of animals just out of the fact that the majority of law abiding citizens will comply. The laws in this country are never meant to simply infringe on an individuals rights, but we have long been willign to do so when there is a greater good served. (and I'm sick of paying my tax money to pay for some idiot to continue having "oops" litters that the shelters have to kill every year, for gosh sakes-- at least make those with unaltered animals carry the bulk of the burden for cost of pet overpopulation).
Very well stated..
...and I think you know your stuff! I like your examples and comparisions. I'm glad it ended up at the top:) I think others (everyone) has made really great points as well. BUT, I'd just like to add that I and many who oppose this believe the answer lies in in the voluntary models like NH and not mandatory including many pet over population gurus and shelter/ASPCA top leaders:) But again, I think you make excellent points about both and I'm glad I had the chance to read it!
All I know is...
First of all, I don't see why people are so mad unless they haven't actually read the proposal. There is an exemption for dogs that compete in agility, obedience, conformation, or other dog sports without paying the $500 license fee. The fee only goes into effect if you are breeding the dog or if it gets out and gets to animal control.
I do a lot of vet work for places that offer low cost, and at certain times no cost spay neuter services. The main problem is that a lot of people just wont do it.
The areas I work in are low-income, but they can usually afford the services offered. The issue at hand is in these places it is often considered to be "not cool" to neuter your pet. I give my spay neuter speech to guys in to get their dog their rabies shot (because that is all they will get, often because they already got a city citation) and I either get a "No", "H*ll No", or a non-commital head nod that means they have no intention of listening to me. Most of these guys have chihuahuas or pit bulls/pit mixes. Being one who LOVES pits and hates the idea of breed specific legislation, it sickens me. These guys are NOT going to fix their dogs unless they have to. Many of them don't see the point of having the dog if its spayed or neutered. A typical pit has a litter of 8 puppies, give or take (I think 6-13 is pretty common) so you can imagine how quickly that builds up.
So are euthanisia rates going to skyrocket? absolutely. It is going to look horrible for the first year or so. A lot of people will not claim their dogs from the city shelters. Not because they can't afford the low cost spay or neuter to get them out, but because these weren't pets in the first place- just dogs that happened to live in their yards. And they definitly don't want them if they can't breed them.
And probably some good people who really did care about their dogs will end up in some comprimising situations. I can't deny that for a moment.
But at this point we are euthanizing an insane amount of dogs daily just in Dallas alone. We have voluntary spay neuter programs in place. SPCA puts out mailers every time they offer free spays and neuters to people in certain zip codes. It still doesn't change.
I hate mandating things too, but I really hate to see all the dogs chained up in some of the cruddier neighborhoods die slow deaths of intestinal parasites and infected uteruses. I hate how the people who breed rotteilers and pits and other big dogs manage to breed gajillions of these dogs. I hate how then those poor hormone filled intact dogs end up going stir crazy at the end of a leash or in a small kennel area, then get out one day and end up hurting some kid. Or some kid wanders into a backyard with a bunch of intact dogs and worse yet a litter of pups. I am tired of working at a shelter and getting in all the dogs that were "just animals" to someone.
Will this proposal fix all of that? I'm sure not, but I think drastic times call for drastic measures. This may not be perfect, but it is a start. No one is going to do house to house raids for unneutered pets. This is just another tool to get pets away from people who don't intend to care for them, and prevent them from going to people who just want to make a cheap buck off of their puppies.
mandatory programs have not worked...
...and I have read the proposed ordidnance many times. I'm happy to see you have also. People who oppose this don't oppose animal welfare laws at all! What is opposed is the implimentation of programs that have failed miserably in other placesresulting in greater problems. There are successful programs that can be modeled. PLEASE don't compare Dallas' voluntary s/n program to New Hampshires OMG!!!! Please read this discussion on the aspca site and look into NH program. http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/livechatwithledyvankavage/forum/top... Believe me the ASPCA is is well informed and against mandatory programs for good reason.
The ordinance states cat and dog show owners can apply for waiver from s/n....not 'anyone' who's dog competes in agility, obedience, conformation, or other dog sport. (please, correct me if I'm wrong...I've NEVER seen that stated in the ordidnace...maybe it's been revised already)????
Regarding Pit Bulls. The ordidnace states only purebreed dogs can be registered with a national registry can receive permits to breed. AND only breeds the director approves. Most people feel it would have only been worded this way to exclude certain breeds including Pit Bulls.
Anyway, Cassie, I can't imagine the frustration being on the front lines of education. Can't we just euthanize the ignorant people? (just kidding...kinda) Maybe someone can post an example of a successful mandatory s/n program?
Pet over population is a massive, complex problem. Statics say, most dogs go through three owners in their lifetime and they are considered the lucky ones because their not killed. I understand PETA's stance against the ownership of animals period because of statistics like that (although I don't agree).
YEAH Cassie
Well said and from someone who should know given all your work!! Thanks for the info!
I think that it wonderful to see...
...people actively engaged in this issue. I think it is really important to view both sides, read the ordinance and understand why there is such a great divide amoung intelligent animal lovers and it seems like that is just what you'll have been doing:) NOBODY disagrees with the horror occuring everyday in shelters and there IS a massive pet over population problem. NOBODY disagrees that people need to fix pets that are not part of a responsible breeding program. That is not what responsible pet lovers are against. (much like people against universal health care are NOT against children and adults having access to healthcare). Fight for what you believe in and remember the best debaters know their opponents views at least as well as their own. I'm on the fence personally but do feel this has a snowballs chance....I don't want it to end if it doesn't pass either. I think there is better a solution which will take both sides coming together (minus the person opposing because she thinks dogs should be breed because their cute).
I think you'll be surprised to find...
...we're not like a lot of other rescue groups. We're very supportive of reputable breeders. But our definition of a reputable breeder is clearly defined: they show their dogs in confirmation rings, they work hard to better the health and temperament of the breed and therefore they spend more money in genetic and health testing than they might make off the pups they produce, and - most importantly - they make each person who buys one of their puppies sign a contract that says the new guardian will return the dog - regardless of the dog's age - to the breeder if the person can't care for the animal (because a reputable breeder cannot imagine one of their animals ending up in a shelter). Sadly, Texas has NOT ONE reputable Great Dane breeder right now.
You might also be surprised to learn that some of our founding members have more than fifteen years of rescue work under their belts...and because of the well-thought-out foundation they set when they formed this group, we have been able to save over 1,000 Great Danes in about seven years. Now that number by itself - one THOUSAND lives saved from just one, not-so-popular giant breed of dog - says a lot about the state of unwanted animals in this area. We have a lawyer and veterinarian on our Board of Directors and a lawyer on our Advisory Board. Both lawyers also happen to be founding members of GDRNT (there's a reason our adoption process is only slightly less invasive than adopting a human child!). ;-)
All of that is to say - we don't support issues without understanding them fully and we're not a hyper-emotional group (okay, there are times that each one of us gets really caught up in a particular issue - but there are plenty of people with sound minds and lots of experience and logical thinking to pull whoever happens to be going off the emotional track back in line). Nothing is put on the front page without approval from our Board of Directors and our Advisory Board - and we don't take the support of legislation lightly.
You won't get flamed on our discussion board (well, there was that one time I got really upset when someone, who - in hindsight - was probably just a troll, promoted hitting a dog during training...but that was an exception). You will find a lot of conscientious pet guardians who work hard to do right by the animals in the direst of situations...those facing a euthanasia needle in the back room at kill shelter.
And the biggest surprise? We enjoy a good debate - because we understand that it's through conversations like these that people can learn the most.
jamie
Sadly, I'm not surprised..
Sadly, I'm not surprised by the numbers of unwanted animals and the tragic reality occuring in sheltrs, but it does make me sick. Since I can remember I've been in and out of shelters with my mom who spent her adult life..>30 yrs volunteering in shelters/ rescues both in NYC and FL. I went a different direction with my adult life as part of movement challangeing the state of FL and successfully moving adult individuals with disabilities out of state institutions into independent homes advocating for their humane treatment and rights. But that really has nothing to do with this ordinance.
The breeder permit clause requires that dogs are regisitered with a national registry; The American Kennel club has already declared it adamently opposes this ordinance. How successful do you think this ordinance can be when the registers do not support it?
Referring to Great Danes alone, many breed advocates feel strongly they should not be fixed until 9-12 months including a couple that I have been directed from this site to for health information. A responsible breeder cannot determine if a dog is an ideal candidate for breeding at 4 months...it would be irresponsible to make a determination at four months and would place an unfair financial burden on breeders to pay $500 for each dog being evaluated. I'm not sure how many breeders in the area would care to continue but this ordidnance DOES NOT stop out of state sales or auctions so you'll still have the same problems. Not to mention the same people who currently just ignore the law. My pups are almost five months and my vet wants to wait atleast another month or so to fix them because of their rough start and immune system concerns. This ordinance has no provisions for my situation which is not unusual. This ordidnace would make me choose between fines and my dogs health...do you think this ordidance would make it easier or more difficult for dogs like mine to find homes?
Take a look at the commission responible fo drafting the ordidance like, Robert Trimble. In a published article, Trimble described himself as a former “animal abuser,” and his description says a lot about what he now thinks abuse is. “I’m a former animal abuser,” Trimble says. “I used to own racehorses, raise roping steers, hunt and eat meat.” Now, Trimble describes himself as a vegan vegetarian, deplores traditional farming and ranching, and agrees with the of opposition to breeding animals, hunting, rodeos and competing with horses and supports the 'no birth' campaign to end the breeding of all pets considering pet ownership 'slavery'. Are you sure you are very supportive of reputable breeders?? (by the way, your definition of reputable is what many advocate...why not make THAT the ordinance)?
Yes, something should be done...but is this really it? Do you really have to 'settle' because it is atleast something? This council should have included the involvement of vets, reputable breeders, working/sport /companion dog clubs and national/local registers, rescues and shelters in the development of this ordidnace. Like i said, I don't think this will pass but I hope it doesn't end and that a round table discussion involving the above are represented in drafting another ordinance.
By the way, I thank everyone for being kind and respectful to me in this discussion...i realize I'm the odd duck here and I do repect your views as well. I think this a wonderful site and I have gotten excellent advice from many of you regarding my pups, Barnum and Bailey. Fight for what you believe in..it's important to advocate and give a voice to those don't have one...whatever your view.
Go down further and look at New Hampshire's laws.
AKC
I don't have much time to write this - and I'll likely come back and edit it for clarification, but I want to get a couple of thoughts out there before my next appointment:
I would be more apt to listen to the AKC if Texas had even one reputable Great Dane breeder. But we don't.
New Hampshire, as a state, has a completely different mindset than Texas. I won't go into the specifics here because I don't want this thread to get off track - but Texas and New Hampshire are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to being socially responsible. (I don't mean that as a slam to Texas - I'm a firm believer that people should be responsible for themselves, but I'm much more socially liberal when it comes to those beings that can't speak/do for themselves...animals, children, the invalid....that's where my bleeding heart starts pumping overtime)
Plus, in Texas, animal welfare laws are all tied up in livestock (cattle and ranching) laws. We have a much, much, much harder task in front of us because cattle ranchers have A LOT of money to pay for lobbyists.
suzannehigbee said: "Like i said, I don't think this will pass but I hope it doesn't end and that a round table discussion involving the above are represented in drafting another ordinance."
That's exactly why the petition should be signed. I doubt any of us believe it will pass with this go 'round - but if no one signs the petition, then it's quite possible this will die....and our goal is to keep the convesation going so the ordinance can be shaped into something that really works.
There are little changes happening all over the state - just one example is Fort Worth, which recently implemented laws banning the chaining of dogs and you can get in serious trouble for leaving your pet inside a hot car now. There's a tide starting to swell and I believe it's important for us to ride this wave while we can and make as many well-thought-out changes while we can.
jamie
Excellent point and well stated...
...I don't know you personally, Jamie, but I know from this site you are saving lives and fight to give dogs a chance in way most don't (including myself) by giving so much of yourself. I also know what you mean about the mind set some people have about animals. I lived in rural SW FL and questioned a neighbor about her dog who had two liters in a year and constantly complained about it. I asked her if I could take the dog to town and get the dog fixed...she said bullets were cheaper! Even after I offered to pay she would not allow me to take the dog in. I called animal control and they said they had no authority to remove the dog. The pet over population includes so many factors it's overwhelming
I do believe Dallas can be a model for the state and other states as well. What kinda model is the question...will it be a postive model others will want to repeat or a divicive failure making others hesitant to do anything. I know some people are chosing not to sign this petition opposed to the ordidance as written and are rather personally drafting letters to the council. I feel the worst thing would be people not doing anything. Here a link with a discussion about voluntary vs mandatory spay/neuter programs I hope everyone will read.
http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/livechatwithledyvankavage/forum/top...
go here too
if you agree with this type of legislation, please feel free to voice you opinion in an on-line discussion which was reported in the Parade magazine. so far 77% of people DISAGREE with the legislation. one of the comments they published said people should be able to breed their pets if they think they're cute.
if we get some intelligent comments going, maybe this will reach a wider audience and we can make other states aware of the benefits this type of law would bring.
here's the website:
http://www.parade.com/pets/pet-chat/archive/pc_0139.html
Explanation
Lady Dane - the petition is to support an ordinance (sort of like a law) that would require owners to spay or neuter their pets (some people call it getting their pets 'fixed'). People who didn't get their pets fixed would get a ticket and would have to pay a fine. The hope is that fewer animals will be born accidentally and fewer animals will be born to backyard breeders - and that means fewer homeless, unwanted animals in kill shelters.
suzannehigbee - being a closet Libertarian, this sort of governmental interference would normally make my hackles stand on end. But in this case, I'm all for anything that will make people think twice before they bring one more animal into this world. Is this the perfect answer? No. And I don't expect it to solve all the overpopulation problems. But, it is a start. And a start is what's needed.
Ten years ago, New Hampshire started down this same exact path. Today they have empty animal shelters. No lie. Ronda, a founding member of GDRNT and former member of our board of directors, now runs an animal shelter in Alabama. She sends 50-70 animals each month to New Hampshire. Animals that might have been euthanized because of overcrowding at her shelter are quickly adopted at her ‘sister’ shelters in NH. The fantastic thing is that they often have more volunteers than they have dogs. That means they have the manpower to leash walk each dog 3-4 times a day, work on basic training and do thorough evaluations of each animal – which is unheard of in Texas shelters.
This happened because New Hampshire has some of the strictest spay/neuter laws in the U.S. and they actively enforce their animal neglect/cruelty laws. Again, it took them ten years to get to this point, even after powerful state legislation went into place. Ten years is a long time and Texas is a much bigger state than New Hampshire, but at least we know it can be done.
New Hampshires is a perfect example of a success story...
but it VERY different then what Dallas is attempting. New Hampshire has a VOLUNTARY spay/nueter program offering low cost services that are available to everyone. This is model that should be repeated. Look into it and compare it to the Dallas ordidance...you CAN'T compare them.
http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/livechatwithledyvankavage/forum/top...
http://www.nhspca.org/community-services/spay-neuter-programs.html
NH and TX
NH and TX, or more general New England and the South are miles apart. New England does not have a dog/cat overpopulation problem; they are actually adopting pets from other parts of the country where people have not reached that level of pet sophistication (for lack of better word). Passing VOLUNTARY measures and waiting for the general population to get educated WILL result in hundreds of thousands of euthanized pets for many years to come (to put it conservatively). Education in the South has not managed to put a dent on dog fighting or incidences of gross cruelty to pets; what makes you believe it will be effective for more "mundane" things like having cute puppies by the ton.
Not only should we pass this neuter/spay ordinance, but we should also make breeding a licensed business subject to citi inspections.
you are so very correct in comparing...
...northern states to sounthern states. Sad but true. But even northern states have had massive pet over population issues which is why they implemented very strict LAWS that were based on VOLUNTARY programs....with success. dallas does not even need to be pioneer in this movement because we have models to evaluate that have been STUDIED by shelters and pet overpopulaton specialists! When NH reports a 70% reducation in euth rates you can't say that they never had a problem to condend with in the first place. You can ask, 'how did they do to get there'? Dallas has NOT EVER attempted to follow these succesful models. As I agree that northern states have made leaps and bounds with successful programs that make us here is the south looks like backwards, uneducated idiots, I don't think it has to be this way. I do think the social climate about animal welfare can to lifted in the same way it has in the north. Or does the sun make us more stupid here? I'll agree here in Texas we are WAY behind the animal welfare movement. I will NOT agree that Texans are incapable of elevating. The good news is WE DON"T have to be pioneers! IT'S been tried ,tested and studied by those that did take on the challanges YEARS ago! We need to move foward and not back. Please find me and example of a successful MANDATORY s/n program.
mandatory vs voluntary
As it was pointed out, with differential fees the difference between Mandatory and Voluntary could really blur, although I understand mandatory evoking some negative feelings. I wish it were called something else like "controlled s/n".
I want to dispell some notions however:
-mandatory is not the same as universal. We can have all the exceptions that are reasonable and I am not arguing that the ordinance proposal as it stands could not be amended/improved.
- mandatory does not mean that the spay/neuter fees will be higher compared to a voluntary approach. Market forces always play so much better the larger the scale, so s/n fees could conceivably be lower in a mandatory program.
Let me list my "favourite" mandate, that is, the property tax, because it is so instructive. We all pay property tax (a mandate) that covers education (universal mandate), and I guess everyone is fine with this. It also covers Parkland, for those that unfortunately cannot afford, and for those that can but do not want a healthcare insurance (so mandate that covers voluntary exemptions). And then it covers city services like animal control where my money is being used to euthanize thousands of animals per year, and believe me that makes me extremely mad.
So, I see your point, and sure we can work to pass a better ordinance. But not at the expense of killing this one first, we can improve it after we've passed something. If this does not fly this time, it may be a while before the city takes up the issue again, and while that happens the killing goes on and on unabated.
Example
"Please find me an(d) example of a successful MANDATORY s/n program.
Okay. Santa Cruz County California instituted a mandatory spay/neuter program in 1995 and their intake and kill numbers decreased consistently. Critics argued in 2006 that it wasnt working anymore when they showed a spike in intake in 2004 and 2005. That argument was debunked when they realized that in 2004 the county had agreed to take on another cities animal control intake thus changing their intake jurisdiction-- with the agreement that when they took them on, the city they took on had to also implement the mandatory program. From 2005 forward, the numbers continue to decline despite population increases. They also continue to decline in the rural city that they took over in 2004.
So there an example for you.
Another note. NH is not always the best comparison-- let's not forget that at the peak of their animal overpopulation issues they were only (i use that term loosely, mind you) killing around 11500-12500 animals annual in the entire state and their kill ratio even then was lower than much of the nation. Also NH has NOT been a complete success with the voluntary programming as they STILL have a BIG cat overpopulation problem. One of the small shelters we work with in NH that in the year of 2006 had a monthly average of TWO dogs in it at a time, shelters hundreds of cats at a time and they continue to euthanize cats for space in early summer (kitten season). From what I understand, mandatory cat s/n has been contemplated there OR mandatory leash law for cats (keep it inside or contained, in other words), though they've not moved forward with either of these.
Don't get me wrong, I could actually be pursuaded to go with a voluntary program if it was done right (with differential licensing AND licensing enforcement, AND leash laws were strictly enforced, AND the city or state was coughing up the money to subsidize spay/neuters down to $10 or less for low income families and sliding scale after that) When you're using voluntary programs as the example, we have to seriously consider whether all the elements can come together in our location-- if it can't the choice may be down to mandatory or nothing.
Okay, i'm done for now. I'm going to contemplate all the things I would do if instead of mandatory government restrictions I had the choice of voluntarily complying or choosing to desregard. I'll start with my foiled plans to have a tiger living in my backyard.
Awesome...yeah, yeah, yeah...
...I am happy to hear your opinion, and grateful you have informed me about Santa Cuz, CA! You educated me (as others have) and I appreciate that:) I'll check it out, and of course, I will post remarks after I have!
i'm just starting to look into it...
...and you DELIVERED!
http://www.cahealthypets.com/archive-pdf/04-08-07-SCruz-Model.pdf
Of course, there will be statements against Santa Cruz...but above is AN EXAMPLE of a mandatory s/n model! Check it out! That is the first (I read tons on the subject) positive example I've seen. Thank you for leading me to it:)
I agree...
I think anyone that has walked in the back "non-public" part of a city shelter and had to look the dogs in the eye that are going to be killed just due to there being too many, would be in support of this. Their faces haunt you for life. There are just too many. 500 a DAY are killed in DFW alone. This is a solution for that and I am for it.
Sara (Bubba Chad's and Shammy's mom)
here are some links...
I realize I may be stiring up a hornets nest here and I think that everyone agrees we have a pet over population problem. We also have unscrupulous breeders and pet owners. I'm just not so sure that this ordiance is the answer. It reminds me of gun control/bans...who does it actually hurt/affect? (I'm not comparing guns to lives but rather what cruel and unscrupulous people do with both).Before signing the petition get all the info THEN decide. So many places just post the petition asking for spay/neuter ordiance but this oridiance is much more detailed than that. There are parts I strongly agree with but I have mixed feelings on others. I think about all the puppy mills just outside Dallas and I think oridance would just make their day:(
http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/Action_Alerts/Dallas_Action_Alert_-_...
here is one by the AKC
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3461
here is one by the sporting dog alliance
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.hunting/browse_thread/thread/a7c73c87...
http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/Action_Alerts/Dallas_Action_Alert_-_...
Spay/Neuter Petition
I myself signed this petition. i do not write as nicely as Jamie does but here goes:
My facts are simple..........
These people are wanting non euthanasia shelters. fine great. Who is going to pay for it? I would love to see this happen, but until areas such as DFW gets a handle on all the unwanted animals this is not a reality.
Leash laws? The police so not have the manpower to give tickets to stupid people lets face it. Increasing the police force is definitely needed, but I am sure that increase can be put to better use.
Now we have the breeders. I would guess that 95% of the breeders we have here are backyard breeders that do NOT care where those puppies end up. Alls they care about is that they get $400 for fluffy. Do they pay taxes on selling Fluffy as income? Nooooo. Do they care that Fluffy's mother had 8 pups and those 8 pups can each have a litter in another year? No. Ok so now we have 64 pups out there and lets face it, they are owned by people that think they are resonsible pet owners. How many of those pups will have mixed litters within a year? Lets not forget that the males can make wayyyy more puppies than the females can within a year! So at the end of the year where are all of those mixed pups going to end up and what will their fate be?
Yes I think we definitely need this to get a handle on the pet overpopulation. Not everyone is as smart as we are lets face it. I sit here every day and look at all of the pleas from the animal shelters that come via email for placement of these unwanted pets and it totally kills me. There are not enough rescues, not enough foster homes out there. Animal rescue groups right now are the best case senario right now for these unwanted furbabies and that totally sucks because there are not enough of us. They do not have deep pockets and they can not save them all. Please don't think I am talking about Great Danes but about the mixes which is what made me sign this petition.
This ordinance is the 1st step in obtaining the types of shelters we all want. That is not going to happen until we get a handle on the pet over population in the area!
Susan