Tonya
12-08-2004, 11:57 AM
My county is considering an animal control ordinance that would require pet owners to license and microchip their cats as well as dogs. The proposal also calls for $100 license fees for dog and cat owners who do not spay or neuter their animals, and a once-a-year limit on breeding. There would be a $2500 fine if you are caught breeding without a license or with an unaltered unregistered pet.
When I first heard of it, I thought that was excellent. I was all for it. Well, the other day, I was at a spa party (I'm a consultant) and the whole party happened to be a bunch of poodle breeders. It was kind of funny because they asked me what I thought, and of course, I started talking about how it was excellent and it'll shut down the backyard breeders, etc... Well, they have their big band wagon to fight this. They've went to the news, the churches, the vets, etc... They supposedly have everyone's support to fight this.
I was willing to listen to their side, and now I'm undecided. Yes, of course, I know that SOMETHING has to be done about the overpopulation, but I'm not sure this is it. They think that it's going to punish the responsible pet owners and that it won't even touch the back yard breeders. They kind of have a point, the problems are normally the loose dogs I see running around in the ghetto, pregnant. I also see so many mixed breed puppies in some backyards and in houses when I'm working. (I work for the phone company.) Those people aren't responsible and honest enough to license and vacinate the dogs. It would cost a fortune to go out and hunt down those people. -A fortune that could go to educating and low cost spay and neutering programs. The responsible breeders will be easy to find and force this on because they're well known in the community, they're established. A few other points that I heard is that working female dogs need to stay intact so that they don't get fat and lazy...we have alot of farms out here. And that showdogs have to stay intact.
Here are a few comments I also clipped out of the newspaper:
I know from experience that Animal Services does not have enough staff to cover animal emergencies, so I assume they'll have to hire significantly more staff to implement the new dog- and cat-licensing ordinance if passed. It would have helped to find out from your article if that's what they plan to do and/or what else they need, or want, to do. I suspect that $128,000 could be better used for education, outreach and spay/neuter programs, and thereby help eliminate the need for this new ordinance altogether.
It seems to me that we are having the old corkscrew effect. Too many dogs, too many cats so the few have to pay for the many that drop their animals off somewhere.
We run just above the low-income level so the Board of Supervisors is going to make us get rid of our pets. Show me where there is an overpopulation of Scottish terriers and I would gladly pay your fees. If I lose my senior citizen discount, I would have to give them up. I hope the board leaves the senior citizens alone.
DON'T PUNISH RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS, In response to the letter "Reducing county pet overpopulation" (Nov. 26), while pet overpopulation is a serious problem in Stanislaus County, what the Coalition for Cats and Dogs does not tell you is that this proposed law will require many responsible owners of cats and dogs to pay as much as $100 per year per animal to license their pet. If a family has one cat and one dog, as many families do, that would be $200 per year.
So, like I said, I'm undecided now. What do you all think? We have a council meeting coming up soon.
When I first heard of it, I thought that was excellent. I was all for it. Well, the other day, I was at a spa party (I'm a consultant) and the whole party happened to be a bunch of poodle breeders. It was kind of funny because they asked me what I thought, and of course, I started talking about how it was excellent and it'll shut down the backyard breeders, etc... Well, they have their big band wagon to fight this. They've went to the news, the churches, the vets, etc... They supposedly have everyone's support to fight this.
I was willing to listen to their side, and now I'm undecided. Yes, of course, I know that SOMETHING has to be done about the overpopulation, but I'm not sure this is it. They think that it's going to punish the responsible pet owners and that it won't even touch the back yard breeders. They kind of have a point, the problems are normally the loose dogs I see running around in the ghetto, pregnant. I also see so many mixed breed puppies in some backyards and in houses when I'm working. (I work for the phone company.) Those people aren't responsible and honest enough to license and vacinate the dogs. It would cost a fortune to go out and hunt down those people. -A fortune that could go to educating and low cost spay and neutering programs. The responsible breeders will be easy to find and force this on because they're well known in the community, they're established. A few other points that I heard is that working female dogs need to stay intact so that they don't get fat and lazy...we have alot of farms out here. And that showdogs have to stay intact.
Here are a few comments I also clipped out of the newspaper:
I know from experience that Animal Services does not have enough staff to cover animal emergencies, so I assume they'll have to hire significantly more staff to implement the new dog- and cat-licensing ordinance if passed. It would have helped to find out from your article if that's what they plan to do and/or what else they need, or want, to do. I suspect that $128,000 could be better used for education, outreach and spay/neuter programs, and thereby help eliminate the need for this new ordinance altogether.
It seems to me that we are having the old corkscrew effect. Too many dogs, too many cats so the few have to pay for the many that drop their animals off somewhere.
We run just above the low-income level so the Board of Supervisors is going to make us get rid of our pets. Show me where there is an overpopulation of Scottish terriers and I would gladly pay your fees. If I lose my senior citizen discount, I would have to give them up. I hope the board leaves the senior citizens alone.
DON'T PUNISH RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS, In response to the letter "Reducing county pet overpopulation" (Nov. 26), while pet overpopulation is a serious problem in Stanislaus County, what the Coalition for Cats and Dogs does not tell you is that this proposed law will require many responsible owners of cats and dogs to pay as much as $100 per year per animal to license their pet. If a family has one cat and one dog, as many families do, that would be $200 per year.
So, like I said, I'm undecided now. What do you all think? We have a council meeting coming up soon.