Where I live, there is an island just off the shore with about 2000 residents that has a lot of bushland and many many native animals ie possums, koalas,kangaroos etc. To stop problems with feral cats etc, there is a rule that any dog or cat must be registered with the Council and and all must be desexed by 6 months (which is the age you have to register them)...UNLESS you pay to get a breeders licence which is about $200. Basically, because it is cheaper desexing your pet than obtaining a licence, most people opt to desex. Other cities down south have these same rules. I think that is a great idea. I want my town to adopt the same rules...but maybe make the breeders licence a bit more -- maybe $500 to really widdle out the non-breeders from the real breeders. It could definitely be a partial answer to the wrong people breeding dogs and the increase of dogs in shelters etc, don't you think?
The only complaint I have about that is that it ends up punishing the responsible breeders that aren't part of the problem. Making the license fee even higher would just punish them more. There's already enough expenses involved with responsibly breeding a dog without adding on more money. I'm glad that it works but I wish that it wasn't bad for good breeders too.
Minniyar....I thought of that too....that's probably why it isn't too much higher than desexing... Tomato...huh? If you brought over a desexed dog to be used for breeding? If it is not desexed, you will need a breeders licence if you live on the island.
Down south where I want to move to, is getting really strict on dog laws. Australia has always had a 2 dog rule but now, you can own one dog at your house but if you want a second dog, you have to ask permission from the houses touching your land (diagonals and across the road included) to even own the second dog! And if you don't have 1,000 square metres or more, you can't own a second dog. If you live in a subdivided block, whether it be 2 houses on it or 10 units, you need permission to get even ONE dog from the Council...and must ask all your neighbours and have a yard and fence check by the Council to make sure it is large enough. I am going through this process right now because I live on a block with a house at the front and a house at the back....
I don't think this is a really punishment to breeders. It keeps the number of irresponsible breeders down IMHO. I think it is a great idea. Breeders add to the whole population of animal, which in turn costs money or dog catchers and clean up when dogs are hit by cars. It sounds like a GREAT idea to me.
Why wouldn't your dog be desexed, Tomato. Don'tyou know about the pet population!!! Thousands of pets dying everyday. Have your pet spayed....BTW just messing with you. I would think that you would have to pay the fee. You would have to legally register the dog...no matter where it was born.
There's always some kind of bill like this trying to be passed in our state legislations. The AKC campaigns very vigorously against bills that require breeders pay breeding fees for the reasons I've listed. They see it as a tax that targets good breeders as well as bad. They say that if existing animal control laws were enforced, there'd be no need to require registration and licensing. I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I definitely agree that if animal control actually did more to require people keep the dogs (and cats) on their property and enforced leash laws/vaccinaition laws, that alone woul dmake for a lot fewer stray animals and make the 'my dog got out when it was in heat' excuse more bogus. But I don't think that responsible breeders should mind paying a small one-time fee to register as breeders.
I really wish that folks would fully consider the long term implications of what they suggest. do you really think that greater governmental control is the answer? everytime you let the government step into your lives, it is just one more piece of freedom that you lose. even if you agree with what they are doing, it makes it easier for them to step in next time and you might not like it then! do you really want the government to tell you how many dogs you can have? what you can do with them? most people on here sure don't want the government to tell them what KIND of dog they can have, but there is NO difference in regulating how many vs what kind vs cut or uncut. if you let them in they will take over. if you keep them out then we all are protecting the freedom that we deserve.
There are towns here in the USA that have similar rules like that. In some towns, you have to register your dog with the local AC. You pay a certain fee every month or year(i dont remember wich) if your dog is fixed, if your dog is not fixed, you pay a higher fee, so many people also choose to desex their dogs. wich I think all places need to have that type of rule. I dont think paying extra would penalize a reputable breeder.
I am stuck in the middle on this 1. I do agree with hoosgow tho. The government will continue to take away rights as long as we let them, but something does need to be done with the backyard breeders and puppy mills and overpopulation of animals. I dont think that a few hundred dollars will stop an honest breeder. In my hometown your have to have a breeders license if u have more than 2 animals of the same species, if your pet is picked up by animal control you will be fined and forced to have them spayed or neutered, and any responsible breeder would not have his/her pet running the streets anyway.
That's what I'd like to see happen around here. Exactly what I'd like to see. People may not like it, but it's a lot better than having strays and euthanizations. nd hoosgow, we don't need to be worrying about government conrtol when we have animals dying in shelters. THat's the least of my worries. I think when they get too involved is in situations where they make add kids take medications that stifle them and make them unhealthy becuase a doctor perscribes it under request of the school.
Well, there should be limits, but I don't see the problem with a spay/neuter law. I can have it the way I like (because I like the way it is). I'm a registered voter and I live in America. I won't complain about the governments role in society while I live in America because I realize how lucky I truly am.
But here is a question.....what would happen to all of the animals that people refused to get fixed? And they didn't want to pay the breeders fee? Do the animals go to a shelter or the owner go to jail for unpaid fees? Just curious?
Well, if the council found out they had a non-registered dog which isn't desexed, the owners would get a notice to get rid of their dog within 14 days (as I have just received -- but I am getting granted a permit hopefully), desex them or get a permit ...but of course there are always people that refuse to register them...very non-responsible owners who obviously don't give a damn if their dog goes missing with any identification. If an unregistered dog is taken to the pound, you have to pay to have them registered before you collect them...and I am not sure the process of getting desexed....the pound may do it and make you pay for that too before you pick them up. It's not 100% effective but better than nothing. Hoosgow, what's the answer to not having a government then?
I just have to throw in my opinion here. At first I thought it sounded like a great idea, but the more posts I read, the more unsure I became. It would be good to control population, but again do I want the government telling me what to do with my animals? I don't know the answer. Where I live you have to renew your city license every year. It's 3.00 for neutered dogs/cats and $10.00 if not neutered. Not a big difference. But, they do require that all animals are given a rabies vac every year, even though the vet says it's not really necessary. My biggest concern with this post, that I don't recall anyone mentioning is having to get permission from your neighbors to own a dog, or as she said in some cases two dogs. We do have a city ordinance that says no more than six dogs on a single property, unless you're outside city limits or something. The ordinance is not typically enforced unless there is a complaint. But to have to get permission to get one or even just two dogs? It would be one thing to apply to get a dog, but to have to get your neighbors permission? I don't like that. What if someone just didn't like dogs? Then do you not get to have one just because someone else doesn't like dogs? How does that work? To me that's the most disturbing part of the post. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits, but this seems awfully strict. What do y'all think about that?