My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Missouri SB 886 -- CALL Today! | Main | SB 866 Update »

February 20, 2008



I see. So now the media gang is trying to get dog owners all stirred up needlessly, insinuating that there might be a ban.

Is there no limit to this?

And you are so right - that's a LOT of calls for a pop of dogs running around 40,000. They need to tighten things up, license, enforce leashing and put the money into AC. Otherwise nothing they do will work, they're just wasting their time.



All of those licensing ideas are great if the majority of people licensed their dogs. I feel that a lot of the irresponsible dog owners are the same people that don't register their car, buy car insurance etc. What makes anyone think they are going to bother doing all of that with a dog?

A lot of people that have dogs that would be considered dangerous (yes, that includes pit bulls) have them for the sole purpose of intimidating their neighbors, etc. They also do not take good care of their dogs and often times abuse them. This is probably why they are so mean.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know something has got to be done.


Calgary is one of the few cities out there that has been successful at getting people to license their dogs. They did this a couple of wasy:

1) Provided a 'free ride home' service so that dogs that are licensed will get instantly taken home. All of their cars have microchip scanners in all AC vehicles so that they can scan microchips and take dogs home. They do have a provision for "frequent fliers" but the service of knowing your dog will be brought home for many owners is worth the licensing fee. And coincidentally, the ride home is much cheaper for animal control than taking the dog and housing/feeding it at the shelter.

2) They are a good animal control and never threaten breed specific laws, restrictive pet limits, or mandatory spay/neuter, so people trust their animal control and don't mind registering their dogs.

Once the licensing is taken care of for the good owners, and they're not wasting money taking good dogs back to the shelters and dealing with shelter costs, they can then focus their efforts on taking in stray dogs, "frequent fliers", and dealing with neglect and abuse cases -- in other words, problem owners. They have adequate funding to do this because they're getting money from the good owners through licensing, and not putting it all into their shelter costs/euthanizing dogs, and can focus on the problem owners.

It truly is a great system. Get the good owners to trust you so you can leave them alone and return their dogs when they accidentally get loose -- and focus all of your energies on the irresponsible owners, abusers and people who want to have aggressive dogs.

But I agree, one of the biggest problems with a lot of the breed specific laws is that all they do is put hardship on good owners (which builds resentment and lack of trust) and the people who were the problems in the first place have no intention on licensing, microchipping, getting extra insurance, etc.

In the end, they haven't solved any of their problems, and made enemies along the way.


Good summary of Calgary's successful approach, Brent.

One thing I'd like to add is that they very actively enforce their bylaws and are not recluctant to issue tickets for non-compliance.

The comments to this entry are closed.