What do you think about this?

[Tonya]

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.

[caseysmom]

I don't know I think it sounds pretty good.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by caseysmom
I don't know I think it sounds pretty good.

Hubby and I were talking about it again...Now I'm for it. Like he said, if you are a good responsible well known breeder, you can afford $100 a dog.

[My Peanuts]

Originally posted by Tonya
Hubby and I were talking about it again...Now I'm for it. Like he said, if you are a good responsible well known breeder, you can afford $100 a dog.

That's exactly what I was thinking. By definition a "responsible" breeder shouldn't mind. It is to protect their dogs and that alone should make them happy. Yes, there will still be some BYB, but they run the risk of getting a hefty fine. If the county makes a few examples of people, then there is a good chance others will stop. I think it's a great plan.

[BitsyNaceyDog]

To me a responsible breeder shouldn't allow their female more than 1 litter a year anyway.

[NoahsMommy]

Originally posted by KBlaix
To me a responsible breeder shouldn't allow their female more than 1 litter a year anyway.

I ditto this.

I think its a good law mainly because of the BRB issues.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by KBlaix
To me a responsible breeder shouldn't allow their female more than 1 litter a year anyway.

Yes, I agree with that for sure. I think my main concern was that this won't affect backyard breeders as much as responsible breeders since byb's are more anonymous. But after some thinking, I think it's a good plan. We have to do all it takes to handle this overpopulation problem. The numbers seem outrageous and impossible to me, but I was told that 8,000 a year are PTS in my county. I sure hope that isn't true.

[luckies4me]

Licensing cats is just ridiculous, plain and simple. Whoever came up with that one needs their head examined! Soon they will be telling us our cats are not allowed outside AT ALL, even on a leash! I have one cat who DOES NOT like to be cooped up inside, and if he is he WILL claw your face to pieces. It is his only way of staying sain. For those cat owners with cats that go outside licensing is retarted because collars get lost ALL the time. My indoor cats don't even wear collars and to think I would have to keep one on just to show a license is ridiculous. My cats lose their collars constantly, which means we would continuously be buying new collars and tags, which means more money we shouldn't have to pay.

[KYS]

My humble opinion or part of it.

It does not bother me for the shelter to
charge $100 for a dog or cat that is not spayed
or neuter for pet owners.
I am not sure how I feel about a breeder licence.

Reputable breeders can have more
than one female dog. A responsible breeder does not
breed back to back but can breed more than one
female a year.
I do know that on the Akita list,
many of the breeders are against this type of Bill.
I would have to go back into the archives to find out the
different reasons.

I also feel that BYB's will
not adhere to the law. The puppy mills and pet shops
will not have any trouble posting fees and paying
for a licence to breed. So it might just weed
out many of the reputable breeders.

On the fence about this one.

[Tollers-n-Dobes]

I don't know what I think of it all. Part of me says it's a great idea and another part says it's stupid idea so I don't know.

[teenster3]

Something definitely needs to be done about the overpopulation of animals in this country. I feel so sorry for those animals that need to be put down just due to not having a home! I just can't think about it...it makes me sick to my stomach & very sad!
I don't know if this is an answer or not. Will there always be those cruel, inhumane backyard breeders.....probably?! I'm sure they'd find a way to make their money somehow! (so very sad!)
TiNa

[catnapper]

I think its a step in the right direction. I think it is not perfect in the way its written, but the kinks can be worked out once the law is implemented. I think they need to have more power to go in and close down the BYB and take away pets from irresponsible owners. There needs to be a database with names and addresses, etc of both BYB and irresponsible pet owners so that once the pets are removed from them, they can't just go and find another pet to replace them -- nobody will adopt to them because they are on the "no adopt" list, etc.

I'm not sure, but would the homeowner have to pay anything to register and license their already neutered/spayed pet?

[Tonya]

Originally posted by catnapper
I think its a step in the right direction. I think it is not perfect in the way its written, but the kinks can be worked out once the law is implemented. I think they need to have more power to go in and close down the BYB and take away pets from irresponsible owners. There needs to be a database with names and addresses, etc of both BYB and irresponsible pet owners so that once the pets are removed from them, they can't just go and find another pet to replace them -- nobody will adopt to them because they are on the "no adopt" list, etc.

I'm not sure, but would the homeowner have to pay anything to register and license their already neutered/spayed pet?

Yes, but it's not much...I think that it is $12. They said they're going to go through the classified ads to find the breeders and follow up to make sure they have licenses.