My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Buckner, MO votes for ban on 'pit bulls' | Main | Correlation vs Causation »

January 22, 2008

Comments

Caveat

Excellent post.

Stray dogs are already covered, I'm sure, by local regulations. Why don't they just start picking them up, engage some rescues, etc in the area?

In my opinion, asking shelter workers to try to address problems of this kind is a mistake. Because they see a snapshot of the overall situation, usually negative, their focus becomes skewed.

Here's another opinion. I'm convinced, as are a lot of others, that mandatory sterilization is the new BSL. Notice how many places have been rejecting BSL lately? I suspect that those who have lobbied intensively for breed bans are finding out it's just too much trouble and not having the desired effect, ie, people are fighting it, hard. They've switched gears.

Mandatory sterilization is much easier to sell. Most people get their pets neutered anyway, so they won't object (unless they think about it). The 'pet overpopulation' meme has been pretty successful, most people believe it, so all that work has paid off.

Sterilization is much more effective than breed banning, and much quicker. You know Ingrid's famous quote "One generation and out" referring to domestic animals?

People really need to think about whether or not a government should be able to invade their privacy to this extent, dictate how they treat their pets and mandate invasive, radical surgery which should be up to a pet owner and a veterinarian. This surgery is not benign, let's put it that way.

We'd best get busy because this one is cropping up all over the place and could be harder to fight.

I really think BSL, an obviously outdated and ignorant scheme, will fade away and be replaced with the much more effective sterilization programs.

Now, where's my tinfoil hat?

PS Redemption was a great book. I learned a lot from it.

Michelled

"limit 6 pets" WOW, straight out of H$U$ handbook. How the hell is that going to solve any freakin problems? So, I have 7 animals and you take my extra and kill it - WOW, all the rest of the problems are solved!!

"Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered unless htey are owned by people with breeder permits" -- This is what it means people: someone that doesn't have the $$ to s/n their dog will have it seized and killed. This is the part of MSN that they don't talk about. Obviously they are not adopting out a fraction of the unwanted animals in Dallas so that means these pets will have no place to go but the incarcerator.

Michelled

OK, I meant to type "incinerator".

Also, many of these laws get passed and the only thing it does is take one dog out of a home and kill it - without ensuring that owner cannot own another animal. You have to have something in place to keep dangerous owners from getting more animals.

Caveat

I actually liked 'incarcerator' :>)

Brent

Caveat,

I can't imagine being someone who worked in a shelter. I can't imagine being someone who loved animals and watched 225 animals die every DAY (for this North Texas Shelter)because they were coming in faster than they were being adopted out. These people have got to want to do something.

Mandatory spay/neuter SOUNDS like a great idea. It sounds like it should work. However, it's not until you start breaking down the realities of MSN and the case studies of MSN vs voluntary programs that you realize what bad policy this is.

If it actually worked as a way of controlling animal population, I would consider it as a viable option. But it doesn't.

It's only by doing hard work in increasing adoptions, and getting more people to voluntarily spay/neuter their animals through low cost facilities can the population of animals be controled. It's a proven method...unlike MSN, which has been proven the wrong way.

The comments to this entry are closed.