A standard for our pets' reproduction ability

[Abby's Law]

We have standards for the treatment of pets to protect them from abuse and neglect. One major oversight though. Abuse and neglect result from irresponsible breeding of our cats and dogs. In the US, we execute 2.6 million cats and dogs per year for the simple reason of them being born unwanted or, being tossed aside by owners who no longer care to uphold their commitment to the obligations they agreed to when they took a furbaby into their home. Why not set a standard when it comes to the reproduction abilities of our four legged companions? If an owner does not wish to breed their animal, they must have them fixed....no exceptions. I have attached details of my proposal. It is the handout I will be sending to shelters and vet clinics. Total agreement of the content is not necessary. The conversation just needs to be had. The status quo is unacceptable.[/size][/font]

[Catherine]

I am glad you have opened the discussion It is a very important issue.

I would like to point out that our members are all around the world.
I can't speak for other countries, but in Canada I think this would be a provincial issue. I don't think the federal government has jurisdiction over it.

I have read your whole document. I can see why you want mandatory sterilization to be law. We are all upset about the huge numbers of pets that are killed each year. I volunteer with a no kill shelter and my guinea pigs are rescues. Many of my reptiles are rescues.(I take the physically damaged ones)

I agree that micro chipping is essential. It would get a lot of lost pets home quickly. Certainly sterilizing pets is so important and must be encouraged. I am not a lawyer so I don't know the implications of making it a law and therefore mandatory. I am not sure what the result of such a law would be if it was put into practice. If I seem hesitant it is because I know laws can work against us even if they have good intentions. The wording would have to be gone over carefully to be sure that it will have the desired result. I would think the law would need to be more general so it can be applied in a wider range of circumstances. Laws last over time so a law would have to think over what might be needed for the future.

I want to think this over. Anyone else have thoughts?

[LPC]

Whilst I sympathise with the background - the shameful and needless euthanisation of unwanted cats and dogs in the USA - I'm afraid that I have some reservations:

I'm not clear what you mean in paragraph 2: "Upon re given the option to either have the animal fixed or, to become a licensed breeder". What does "upon re given..." mean? "When the animal changes hands..."? "Upon being given a pet..."? "Upon being given a pet a second time..."? Or "Upon (something), the pet caretaker shall be given the option..."?

I don't like the word "fixed". That suggests that there is a "fault" needing to be fixed. Reproduction is part of nature and is natural. I agree about the unacceptability of unwanted pets, but "fixed" is not the right word. Sterilisation is the word to use in this situation.

Is it realistic to suggest that a national register must be set up (and policed) for any person wishing his/her pet to have a puppy/kitten? I would imagine that many pet caretakers would regard this as draconian. If people put off the choice between sterilisation/breeding licence, then did not pay the breeding fee upon the birth of offspring, would they be put in prison for non-payment?

Catherine is right on another point. Your proposals might work in some countries where all laws are passed on a national level, but they would not work for those countries where animal laws are passed at a regional/provincial level.

I totally agree about microchipping of pets. This enables animals to be identified quickly and returned to their caretakers if lost.

Realistically, however, I can't see any government anywhere adopting your proposals. They are very restrictive and would require a lot of enforcement (constant checking of databases for compliance and resultant follow-up action by the authorities). There would big tax implications, too. Apart from the salaries of the register staff (checking for compliance nationwide, policing enforcement), you suggest a 50% rebate of sterilisation costs for those on low income. All that money would have to come from somewhere. These considerations are only financial and do not invalidate the moral argument for your proposal, but they do raise questions about whether they stand any chance of ever being considered by any government.

The threat of fines and possible imprisonment for non-payment of fines (where people have put off the option of sterilisation) could increase the numbers of puppies and kittens being illegally and cruelly killed (stuffed in rubbish sacks, thrown into a canal, etc.).

I am sympathetic to your document, as your heart is clearly in the right place. Thank you very much for opening this poll and starting the discussion. But I personally think that the details of the proposals are partly unrealistic and perhaps too restrictive.

[Tobi]

Hello, and a warm welcome to our forum!

When I first glanced at your proposal, I thought it was basically a good idea. But when reading the points LPC brought up, that made me think a little deeper into it.
I used to always think ALL animal breeders should not be able to operate without a license and random unscheduled visits by animal welfare officials.
But of course it brings up so many 'grey areas' to enforce sterilisation by law, and to make breeding one's animal without a licence a criminal act.
And if that were the case -what about those pregnancy 'mistakes' which will probably always happen, even if the numbers are reduced. Yes, then that might encourage unscrupulous people to 'dump' or kill the pups/kittens. Even people who would normally not do that, may be reduced to it if heavy fines and criminal charges were looming!

I have horrible memories of a pretty 'decent person otherwise' (my father's Dad) drowning kittens at birth in a bucket of water. The semi-feral cat in question had another litter and I kicked up a fuss (age 5) until one kitten was saved. It became our pet cat. That happened in the early 50s. I would hate to see those days return.

Yet I feel you have something there. Maybe it needs just a little fine-tuning....

[platy]

I'm seeing a lot of emotive language and red tape and little on facts and figures. I know you have good intentions and on some parts I do agree with you, however governments talk in dollars and cents and I think they're unlikely to genuinely respond to something that calls a pet 'baby girl' 'furbabies' and 'angels' and irrelevantly brings in rapists and paedophiles.

"Let’s say that unwanted animals from irresponsible breeders account for 50% of the animals that cause the need for animal control in the first place. That’s half of the need for the animal control departments gone (along with the taxpayer burden for them). That means that the other 50% of animals that find their way to animal control are either abandoned or lost animals. The requirement of microchipping the animals reduces the time it takes for the owners to be found. Say it cuts the time by 70%. That’s 70% less personnel time and, 70% less food needed to care for those animals. Again, major savings on a case by case basis."

You can't just make stuff up. You need actual facts and figures as evidence to support your claims.

Proposal #5. Getting an animal re-microchipped is a waste of time, money and resources and also puts unnecessary stress on an animal. If an animal is properly registered, as it should be when it is initially microchipped, you would only have to update ownership details with the registry.

In most states in Australia it is now mandatory to microchip dogs and cats (before sale or as a condition of registration). We have council registers for pets and there's an annual fee to have your pet registered. There are also optional National pet registers, but I do not know how feasible a mandatory national register would be in the USA. You have 319 million people.
We also have state Acts such as the Domestic Animals Act which covers the legislation and regulations of domestic animals, changes of legislation to Acts is very difficult and takes a long time.

"(The option to wait until the animal reaches puberty is given because the mentality of the animal changes due to hormones. In the case of a dog, if the dog is fixed before puberty, the dog will retain a more puppy like mentality. Allowing the dog to reach puberty gives the dog an adult mentality.)"
I'd like to know where you pulled this from.

Nowhere in there states what is an acceptable number of litters per dog and for breed of dog. Surely there are already breed societies in America?
Why are your suggested proposals allowing any old Tom, D*** and Harry to become a licenced breeder? Is this not contradictory to what you're wanting to prevent?

"To start off with, if you believe you shouldn’t care about the plight of the voiceless, the innocent and, the suffering, I would strongly suggest you reevaluate the parameters of what you consider moral and, your definition of what is considered responsible. But, if you do not wish to do so, I can explain it in terms that will show you it’s impact on your life and, what you care about."
This is condescending.

To sum it up; less emotion, more facts and actual researched figures, re-address your proposals - make them realistic, not idealistic, research what legislation and regulations are already in place, be it at state or council level - use this as a point of change or as evidence for your suggestions. How do other countries tackle these issues? Reference, reference, reference and reference some more. Reputable references.

Fix it up a bit and get in contact with advisory boards in different states if you really want it to make a difference.

[Abby's Law]

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

[Catherine]

I think the big cats and other animals like them should be regulated by completely different laws. If you regulate lions and tigers in a law about pets you imply that lions and tigers could be considered pets.

I have been thinking about how people would react to such a law. Some people will comply and that is good. Some will deliberately breed their pets in defiance of the law. Some will come up with some reason why it is dangerous to sterilize their pet. (Think about the issue of vaccinating children. It has been impossible to force people to do it and some have supposed scientific reasons why they shouldn't do it. Meanwhile diseases that have been "conquered" keep causing epidemics)

My biggest worry is the people who will not want to be bothered with regulations so they will just dump the animal somewhere. The law would have to be brought in very carefully or it could cause a massive wave of animal abandonment.

What do the rest of you think?

[Catherine]

I would like to put a number of political figures in a boat and send them off, but that is another issue.

It would be important to look into the matter of federal vs. state law.

It might be better to start with a simpler more generic law that does just a few things. It could regulate the most important issues. Once a basic law is established then it can be amended as need arises.

Certainly getting pets sterilized is an important goal. The question is, what form would a law need to take to encourage people to do this.

[AnimalFamily]

Wow, so much info here, I'm not exactly where to start?
While I do realize we have a serious problem here in the U.S., I'm not exactly sure what the solution is.
I do take exception to some of the ideas mentioned in your proposal.

As for the idea of sterilization vs. licensing?
I wonder about people like myself. I have my dog Payne. She was spayed at a very young age as we were being "responsible" pet owners. As she has grown I have revisited that idea many times. She is a 3rd generation dog. her grandparents were our first two dogs here. She is the most intelligent creature I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. As she is getting on in years, I have many times wished I had held back on having her spayed as she will be the end of her line and I would have loved to see that bloodline carried on.

I gather from your proposal, in my situation I would need to become a licensed breeder to breed my one dog one time??
The whole increased licensing issue just seems a ploy to put more money in governments hands, in my opinion of course. Don't know too many people in favor of that!
Part of the problem we have in general is that the laws we do have [for any number of issues] are regularly NOT enforced.

I agree completely with LPC; the term "fixed" is a widely used term that does not apply. One is assuming there is something wrong with our dogs to begin with. They are not broken, therefore they don not need fixing!

I believe the bulk of the problems lies with dog breeding facilities. Just look through any newspaper and you will see the vast number of registered purebred [or whatever new breed is coming down the pike] puppies for sale with outrageous prices attached. Do they sell all of these puppies? I think not. What happens to the ones they don't sell?

I think instead of enacting more laws one after another, we need to raise the conscientiousness of pet owners in general. People need to be educated in the art of responsible ownership.
Being a responsible pet owner is a full time job. We didn't have our children, then just throw them out in the back yard to let them fend for themselves. Why would we do this with our pets?

If you're paying attention, you know when your female is in heat. It is possible to confine her during this time. Thus cutting down on unwanted pregnancies.
Most importantly, teach your dog his/her boundaries. I know this is possible, I have done it. It does however, take time and a ton of patience!!!

I/we raised Payne as if we were raising another child, taking the time to teach her the difference between right and wrong.
I think if more people took this approach, it would cut down dramatically on the number of unwanted puppies.

As for the masses of dog breeders out there, if people stopped buying these 'special' breeds [mostly a status thing anyway] breeders wouldn't be so prolific.
I will take a mixed breed puppy over a pure bred any day of the week! I have seen so many "pure bred" dogs that just seem mentally inferior to most of the mixed breed dogs I have known in my life. Could be the breeding practices or maybe it's the owners' participation, I'm no expert. Or maybe it is a combination of the two?

The point is there will always be problems and just throwing laws out there willy nilly will solve nothing, especially if we don't enforce them.

If you know you will never want a pup from your current dog then by all means have them spayed or neutered. But think long and hard about it. If you think might want to breed your little sweetheart one day to carry on that special blood line then try practicing some responsible pet parenting. It should not require a license.
By the way, this goes way beyond just unwanted pregnancies. Roaming dogs cause a number of problems of others. My dog stays home!! My neighbors dogs do not!! It causes numerous problems for me on a daily basis....but then that is another topic indeed!!!

[Catherine]

I am glad you replied to this. I can only really speak for the Canadian situation. When we push for access to cheaper spay/neuter clinics it really helps.
We still have a street cat problem, but we are doing a Trap/Neuter/release program to rid Toronto of street cats. It will take time, but I think the numbers are already down because over a thousand cats did not produce kittens on the street this year.

A pet sterilization law would not help with the street cat problem.

You make a good point about the breeders. There are good breeders, but there are also puppy mills. Do you have laws to deal with them?

I know what you mean about Payne. A puppy would have been nice to carry on the line. I have Mr. Pigbert's son, but I do not have a female to produce a next generation. He is nearly at the end of his life so I think it is too late.
I do have two children from Earl and that is a comfort.

Making laws has to be done very carefully. A law about pets and licencing could backfire and turn into an anti pet law if it was used by the wrong people.
It might be a good idea to research what laws already exist and see what can be done with them.