What would you do?

[Malamum]

There have been quite a few posts lately about BSL and we all seem to be as equally outraged. However we all have to admit that there is a problem, i.e. there are too many dog attacks and too many dogs in shelters etc....

If you were the person that had the ultimate power and the final decision was up to you, what laws would you put in place in regards to dog ownership? And what would your penalties or punishments be for broken laws?

(I will post my suggestions a bit later.)

[DogPaddle]

Ok it may not seem immediately obviouse why I would make these choices but I think it would work for a number of reasons.

1. All breeders must be licenced. Must pass test and agree to terms which include but are not limited to:
No more than (perhaps 30-50 - not sure on this) dogs owned.
Breeding only dogs 2 years and older, breeding bitchs only 1x every 2 years.
A recorded and adhered to breeding plan designed to improve the breed they are breeding ie I will reduce the occurance of HD in breed X by . . .
Insisting on a plan/standerd for placing dogs in homes so dogs go to good homes where the dogs will be well cared for, socialized, understood and well trained.
Loss of breeders licence if pattern of poor breeding developed including temperment problems.
Huge fines for failure to comply so that it is more expensive to break the rules than too comply.

2. All dogs except those owned by licenced breeders must be desexed. Penalty - $350 fine if dog has never been bred, $5000 if dog has been bred and lifetime ban on breeder's licence.

3. Jail time and fines for animal abuse and ban on any future ownership. This would apply to dog fighting including spectators.

4. Increased government funding for all dog shelters, with a goal of placing dogs in good homes and instituting subsidized obedience classes for all adopted dogs that need it or owners that need it.

5. Mandatory obedience/handlers/aggresion management courses for people whos dogs are involved in biting or attacks - whether against a person or another dog. Followed by heavy fines and possible jail time and possible ban on future dog ownership for noncompliance or for repeat offense.

6. Fines for breeders who's dogs are repeatedly involved in bitings or attacks and if a long term pattern persists a revocation of breeders licence.

Massive education campaigns!
Maybe some other stuff, I'll have to think about it.

[Aroura]

Everything that DogPaddle said, plus compulsary microchipping and heavy fines for non compliers. They supposedly have compulsary chipping here but do you think they do anything to enforce it?
Jail and fines if caught dumping puppys... we recently had a litter of Pit/Mastiff puppys dumped by the river, strategically placed so that when they wriggled they would slide in and drown, those evil bastards who put them there belong in jail!
On the education campaignes, there should be tv commercials, pamphets handed out in the mail, whole television shows on looking after dogs, like Harrys practice or something but completely devoted to dog care, on at an hour the whole family can watch.
There should be a big push for dog training for EVERYONE and it should be affordable with all training methods available with a emphasis on socialisation.
And all these things have to be enforced, there's no point in having laws if they aren't enforced and unfortunatly all the laws here involving dog ownership aren't even given the time of day.

[Sanvean]

I personally think people should have to have a license to have a cat or dog (or larger animals, like horses). They would have to pass a basic test on animal care and agree to keep their pets in a certain condition, with heavy fines and the loss of their pet(s) if they don't.

[Rosebud]

:-?

While I agree with everything Dogpaddle, Aurora and Sanvean said, I think the only thing that is absolutely necessary is:

1. All dog(s) and their primary owner should be required to take a basic obedience class not any earlier than 6 months of age but less than 1 year of age with an evaluation done at 2 years of age. Exception: For known experienced dogs owners/breeders an evaluation on the dog(s) can be done at 6 months, 1 year & 2 years as a substitute for the class. (thinking perk for responsible people here)

2. Anyone interested in breeding must obtain a breeders license. To obtain this license you would be required to take a class on breeder responsibility/ethics and health issues relating to your particular breed. Re-evaluation done every 5 years. Additional classes would be necessary if you decide to change or add to your breed. (This would make it necessary for mills to be licensed in every breed they breed.) Breeders license would require you to adhere to the ethics of your particular breeds mother breed club but not require membership to this club. (thinking about club politics here and while it would be great to make everyone breed only 2 year olds and up, you do need to leave people some freedom of choice, the education class should be enough to teach them why they should wait and there can be some valid reasons to stud a dog that is less than two although personnally I wouldn't.)

3. All dogs except those owned by licenced breeders must be desexed. All dogs would be required to be micro-chipped by either a vet or a licensed breeder to insure return to owner if dog should run off. Repeated offenses of either would carry hugh fines with a 1st time forgiveness clause. (o.k. I know how many pups could still come out of this, but everyone should get a least one chance to comply, plus you need to make an allowance for licensed breeders who don't want a dog desexed before they can see if a possible show/breed fault corrected and/or that this particular placement would be an asset to the breeding program). Second offense would require mandatory desex of dog before release from shelter unless the original breeder will take full responsibility and ownership of said dog if it is an asset to the breeding program. (I'm thinking preservation of existing gene-pool here, this will also encourage breeders to place pups in resposible homes, while making owners aware of the fact that if they don't control their dogs they will lose them)

4. Actual enforcement of existing laws pertaining to dogs and dog ownership.

4. Increased government funding for all dog shelters, with a goal of placing dogs in good homes and instituting subsidized obedience classes for all adopted dogs that need it or owners that need it.

While I agree with this one, I do not feel that it would be necessary since micro-chips and de-sexing would be mandatory and that in itself would decrease the amount of strays in the shelters.

:angel:

[Rowie-the-Pooh]

I vote DP and Rosebud for president! :thumbs:

[Rosebud]

:oops:

Rowie-the-Pooh napisał(a):

I vote DP and Rosebud for president! :thumbs:

Geez, thanks Rowie, I am very flattered, I will have to decline the nomination as I am not too fond of participating in politics, but Thanks anyways.

:angel:

[Rowie-the-Pooh]

Rosebud napisał(a):

:oops:

Rowie-the-Pooh napisał(a):

I vote DP and Rosebud for president! :thumbs:

Geez, thanks Rowie, I am very flattered, I will have to decline the nomination as I am not too fond of participating in politics, but Thanks anyways.

:angel:

:lol:

Aww, it's okay! :wink:

[courtnek]

DP and ROSEBUD!!

that's AWESOME!! DP, you should be a politician!!

the only thing I have to add is STIFF STIFF (in the thousands of dollars/pounds) fines and mandatory jail sentences for dogfighting. EVERYWHERE! None of this 90 days crap they hand out now,
if at all....

classes for first time dog owners, and refreshers when necessary, to teach them the type of dog traits in the animal they have chosen, and
basic obedience and stuff.

If the breed chosen is a guarding breed, or known to have aggressive
tendencies (towards animals or people) they owner needs to allow
a home visit from the shelter/breeder after 6 months, to see how the
dog is getting on (lots of shelters here do this now)


Cruelty to animals should be a CRIME!!! not a slap on the wrist and
a small fine....and once convicted, you cant own another pet. period.

That's my take...

there would of course always be exceptions, which need to be taken into
account. Cat collectors are usually somewhat mentally ill, and that
requires something other than a jail sentence to fix....

[DogPaddle]

Ah, if only we ran the world . . . or at least made the doggy laws.

I think part of the reason occurances of animal cruelty and neglect are so high is because the penalties are so paltry. And its not the big stick deterrant attitude I'm looking at (although that's fun too) but its what message a $500 fine for killing a dog sends that's the problem. You get in more trouble for stealing and trashing a CAR than torturing and killing a DOG. Laws clearly reinforce the idea that the life and well being of dogs is a cheap and valueless things. Society's attitude is in part shaped by this. :cry:

[gooeydog]

As far as what's been posted already, some I agree with completely, some I disagree with.

2. All dogs except those owned by licenced breeders must be desexed. Penalty - $350 fine if dog has never been bred, $5000 if dog has been bred and lifetime ban on breeder's licence.

This I disagree with.... I fully support the spay/neuter of pets, but at the same time, there are things that some people like to do with their dogs that require the dogs be intact... conformation and french ring/shutzhund trials being two I can think of right now. Sooo... would people wanting to keep intact dogs in order to participate in these sports without the intent of breeding be fined and/or have to have their dogs altered just because they have no plans of breeding? If you wanted to keep an intact dog for some reason, and there were special exceptions made for that, then how would it be decided what was a suitable reason? Who would be deciding these things?

Fines for breeders who's dogs are repeatedly involved in bitings or attacks and if a long term pattern persists a revocation of breeders licence.

Disagree again... if someone's dog(s) attack someone (or more than one person) on more than one occasion, it's time for the person to face some serious consequences. Obviously they didn't smarten up the first time, so I think that jail time should even be an option in some of these cases.

Massive education campaigns!

Agree completely! This is (IMO) the most important thing that needs to be done.

plus compulsary microchipping and heavy fines for non compliers.

Another important one... this way dogs that are attacking can be traced back to owners, and owners held responsible.... Dogs that are repeatedly left to roam placed in new homes, owners held responsible... you get the point.

4. Actual enforcement of existing laws pertaining to dogs and dog ownership.

Another important one. This would actually solve a lot of problems, and IMO reduce the number of dog bites drastically.

The other stuff couldn't hurt, but I can guarantee you'd have a hard time getting people to abide by it, and in addition to that, if we have this much trouble enforcing the laws we have now, then HOW are we going to enforce all these new, expensive, time/resource consuming laws?

I think that first, before adding any new laws, we need to start enforcing the ones we have now, maybe adding in a clause about microchipping.... $5 off annual licensing fee if dog is chipped, any dogs that have been deemed "vicious" or "potentially dangerous" required by law to be chipped, just to start off with. In addition to that, the city/county/state/whatever government needs to start an awareness campaign. I bet there are people out there who would VOLUNTEER their time/knowledge if they were asked to for these types of things. There needs to be a dog safety awareness program, a responsible dog ownership program, and possibly a "pet at risk" type program, which addresses what drives dogs to bite/attack, and what to do if you suspect that a dog you know poses a threat. In addition to that, maybe revamp the licensing system so that license fees were higher (say... $50 per dog per year), then add in "knockoffs" for responsible owners... like: dog is fixed=1/2 off... dog is a CGC, has passed TT, or been through obedience=$15 off... of course, something would have to be done so that responsible breeders weren't stuck with astronomical license fees, I don't know how that would work.

If all that was enforced, and it still wasn't enough to stop the problems, then maybe more rules could be implemented, but I really think that would be enough to at least dramatically cut down the problems.

[Rosebud]

:-?

Quote:
2. All dogs except those owned by licenced breeders must be desexed. Penalty - $350 fine if dog has never been bred, $5000 if dog has been bred and lifetime ban on breeder's licence.

This I disagree with.... I fully support the spay/neuter of pets, but at the same time, there are things that some people like to do with their dogs that require the dogs be intact... conformation and french ring/shutzhund trials being two I can think of right now. Sooo... would people wanting to keep intact dogs in order to participate in these sports without the intent of breeding be fined and/or have to have their dogs altered just because they have no plans of breeding? If you wanted to keep an intact dog for some reason, and there were special exceptions made for that, then how would it be decided what was a suitable reason? Who would be deciding these things?

For the people you are talking about, they would be required to obtain a breeder's license even though they do not plan on breeding, the course required to obtain the license would educate them to the dangers of having an intact dog, therefore they can be held liable for negligence.

:angel: