07-29-2015, 02:56 AM
I thank you all for your insights. I agree that this proposal needs serious fine tuning. Seeing as though I lack even decent administrative or technical skills (evident in the simple 're' typo that was supposed to be registration), posting this thread is meant for the critiques that I can't find myself.
The fact that this is an international forum is what I was looking for in hopes of getting feedback on what has and hasn't worked elsewhere.
Platy, the condescending sentences were spouted from my anger on the issue. thank you. it will be revised.
Re-microchipping was something that was told to me by what I now believe was a greedy veterinarian. That section will be removed completely. The initial microchipping section will be amended to allow pet owners the option to upgrade it to a more powerful RFID chip that can store the animals vet records.
The national register I believe could be feasible as long as it's privately ran but government subsidized.
The change in mentality due to hormones from puberty has been told to me by every vet my animals have ever been to. But, again, you're correct in it needing to be referenced.
The option to become a licensed breeder is there for 2 points. First, the pet owner must be put in the situation to question whether or not they want to take on the responsibility of a breeding animal. A lot of people are idiots who never even question it. So forcing the conversation may be the only time the issue ever crosses their mind. Second, this proposal is designed to be a blanket standard on the federal level. If states want to take it further, they can. But, they cannot scale it back. Conservative states would likely not want to force the sterilization while, liberal states are far more likely to.
There are many animal protective laws here in the US that address abuse and neglect. I have yet to find one on a state level addressing the reproductive abilities of our domesticated animals.
Tobi, thank you for your perspective. I hadn't thought to insert a portion to address those that litter kill. Unintended pregnancys do happen and I failed to address it. A leiniency threshold of a single litter being allowed to be turned over to a local rescue may help. A different exemption for feral or semi-feral cats is a much more complicated issue but, it will be addresses in the revised version.
LPC, I totally agree that the wording does need some major touch up but, that also reminded me that I should create different versions for "target" audiences. Three audiences come to mind: everyday people (both pet owners and not), veterinary professionals (and others in the field), and legislative professionals. This version is more geared towards everyday people. The legislative wording is what will be the final version as this is meant to be a ballot measure and, not a legislative decree. Congress would have zero choice to enact it as law if the popular vote dictates that they must act and, act with no delay. If any of you can think of any other types of target audiences, your input would be greatly appreciated.
I am also considering setting up an amendment to it that could be voted on separate from the whole addressing idiots would think tigers, bears, lions, and other rare dangerous animals cannot be kept as pets. (Yes, some people are just that stupid and there was a massive breakout in the US north when lions and other big cats were roaming neighborhoods.) Any advice on how that should be worded would be appreciated
The fact that this is an international forum is what I was looking for in hopes of getting feedback on what has and hasn't worked elsewhere.
Platy, the condescending sentences were spouted from my anger on the issue. thank you. it will be revised.
Re-microchipping was something that was told to me by what I now believe was a greedy veterinarian. That section will be removed completely. The initial microchipping section will be amended to allow pet owners the option to upgrade it to a more powerful RFID chip that can store the animals vet records.
The national register I believe could be feasible as long as it's privately ran but government subsidized.
The change in mentality due to hormones from puberty has been told to me by every vet my animals have ever been to. But, again, you're correct in it needing to be referenced.
The option to become a licensed breeder is there for 2 points. First, the pet owner must be put in the situation to question whether or not they want to take on the responsibility of a breeding animal. A lot of people are idiots who never even question it. So forcing the conversation may be the only time the issue ever crosses their mind. Second, this proposal is designed to be a blanket standard on the federal level. If states want to take it further, they can. But, they cannot scale it back. Conservative states would likely not want to force the sterilization while, liberal states are far more likely to.
There are many animal protective laws here in the US that address abuse and neglect. I have yet to find one on a state level addressing the reproductive abilities of our domesticated animals.
Tobi, thank you for your perspective. I hadn't thought to insert a portion to address those that litter kill. Unintended pregnancys do happen and I failed to address it. A leiniency threshold of a single litter being allowed to be turned over to a local rescue may help. A different exemption for feral or semi-feral cats is a much more complicated issue but, it will be addresses in the revised version.
LPC, I totally agree that the wording does need some major touch up but, that also reminded me that I should create different versions for "target" audiences. Three audiences come to mind: everyday people (both pet owners and not), veterinary professionals (and others in the field), and legislative professionals. This version is more geared towards everyday people. The legislative wording is what will be the final version as this is meant to be a ballot measure and, not a legislative decree. Congress would have zero choice to enact it as law if the popular vote dictates that they must act and, act with no delay. If any of you can think of any other types of target audiences, your input would be greatly appreciated.
I am also considering setting up an amendment to it that could be voted on separate from the whole addressing idiots would think tigers, bears, lions, and other rare dangerous animals cannot be kept as pets. (Yes, some people are just that stupid and there was a massive breakout in the US north when lions and other big cats were roaming neighborhoods.) Any advice on how that should be worded would be appreciated
