Are Pets Being Legislated Out of Existence?

[marshabar1]

In recent years, those paying attention can see a trend: Society's room for pets has been shrinking, with government enforcing the shrinkage. After licensing, with the dogcatcher, euthanasia and sterilization in place, laws were added forbidding tying a dog in a yard. In Albuquerque, an annual $150 permit is required for that and a trolley must be provided. A litter requires a permit too, for another $150 and there's a cap. Public parks now provide fenced exercise yards for dogs, the only places they are allowed to be unleashed in public.

The future is coming clear in two new laws: In Albuquerque, it's now unlawful to leave a dog alone for very long. The cost of maintaining a dog is moving toward parity with that of maintaining a kid; not only with needing dog-sitters but with health care; health insurance for dogs and cats is a growing market. A recent vet's bill for diagnosing and euthanizing an elderly pooch, a two-hour office visit mostly spent waiting, was $300.

The second and most unmistakable signal is laws popping up around the country simply banning the retail sale of dogs and cats. Examples are Austin, Texas, and West Hollywood, California. The San Francisco city fathers have been considering a similar ban, so has the state of New Jersey and the City of El Paso. Some of these include small animals and birds in the ban.

Most of this has been a response to lobbying from animal welfare folk whose stated concerns center on the miseries of abused, abandoned and inadequately cared-for pets plus protection of the earth from feral cat fecundity; the irony of saving the pets by legislating them out of their habitat doesn't seem to be recognized.

www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_end_of_family_pets.html


Most people believe there is little difference between animal welfare and animal rights organizations. But the 'Animal Rights' movement's main goal is not, and never has been, to save or help individual animals. Its only mission is to market its anti-human, anti-pet philosophy and vegan lifestyle to the American public. Animal rights extremists have camouflaged their true agenda from the public. This agenda is the ultimate goal of abolishing all animal ownership. They disguise this goal in many different ways. One way is to encourage the public to confuse animal rights with animal welfare. These two concepts are diametrically opposed.

www.abraxaskennel.com/AnimalRights.html

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Interesting story.

While I am active in animal RESCUE (and welfare), I am not active in the pet-hating animal rights movement.

That being said, I would like to see mandatory spay and neuter laws in my community, where 90% of the animals who arrive in our high-kill animal shelter are euthanized due to overcrowding and lack of space. And, frankly, around here ... I'd love to see the banning of retail sales of cats and dogs.... though I must admit that none of our local pet stores sells them. Instead, they make adoption space available to rescues.

And I like the idea of fenced dog parks, too

[bean29]

I know too many devoted animal lovers. Pets will never be successfully mandated out of existence. I have no worries about this.

I do admit I spend a fortune on health care for my dog, and my Dear FIL comes over evey day and walks the dog while we are at work. Doggie Daycare is a flourishing business and does cost about what daycare does in many areas.

[ugonow]

Its only mission is to market its anti-human, anti-pet philosophy and vegan lifestyle to the American public.

I have to admit,I am also against people eating the pet dog or cat....

[Opti]

The only person I knew who was really into animal rights did become a vegetarian was also a die hard pet owner. He had three or 4 cats with his wife.

[dancinmama]

I do not license my pets. The first was obtained from a breeder. The other two were rescue animals.

I googled why you should license your pets and here's what I got:

1. If your dog gets lost, a license tag on your dog's collar is the fastest way to find you when your dog is found. Even if your dog is microchipped, a license tag is immediately visible and doesn't require a scanning device to read it, like a microchip does.

If my dog gets lost, he has a tag with his name, address, and phone number. There is no need for a license to do this.

2. Licensing, unlike microchipping, lets people know that your canine companion has received required vaccinations that protect your dog from rabies.

The vet gave us rabies tags when our pets were vaccinated.

3. The fee you pay for your dog license and license renewal keeps your city's animal shelter, Animal Care and Control, going. It is one of the primary sources of revenue for ACC, so it can continue to provide its unique services to all the citizens of San Francisco, from finding new homes for unclaimed or surrendered pets to keeping neighborhoods safe from aggressive dogs, from caring for animals whose owners have died to teaching good pet care to school kids.

That's nice, but if I choose to donate food to the animal shelters to help out, I will do that and I have. I do not need the government forcing me to do it.

4. Your dog's license shows that you are a responsible dog caregiver. When you walk your dog or let your dog run in designated areas, people will notice the license on your dog's collar and know that you really care about your dog's welfare. Dogs without licenses carry a stigma of owner neglect.

This is BS. From across the street I cannot see whether a dog is licensed or not. Just because you have your pets licensed does not make you a more courteous pet owner.

5. It's the law. Living in San Francisco brings many lifestyle advantages and cultural rewards, but it also carries some obligations. Among these are the payment of fees for municipal services. Good citizens get their dogs licensed.

Yep, it's the law. I'll gladly pay a fine to get my dog "out of jail" if they get out and are picked up by animal control - highly unlikely. I am a good citizen; I don't let my dogs out in the neighborhood or let them run wild.

I know I'll probably get flamed by some. Oh well.

[Deleted]

Jun 4, 2011 11:20:48 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I know too many devoted animal lovers. Pets will never be successfully mandated out of existence. I have no worries about this.

Maybe not mandated out of existance but it can be made extremely difficult to own them.

I don't know that I do like specific dog parks. That just seems like a huge concentration of where the dogs go and I can't see that being really healthy. I have found out of the way places that I can take Charlie and leave her off leash.

[handyman2]

We have several animal rescue groups in our area. We will foster some now and then till they get adopted. The problem is that they and we become attached and it is hard to part with them. The groups spay and neuter them and give them all the shots before they are transported to new homes. People pick them out over the net and pay for all the expenses to get them. Most go to the New York, New England area where they have very strict laws.
One funny is that there was a hound dog that was not the most attractive pup but a lady in Manhattan fell in love and now he lives in a million dollar high rise. I was tempted to put my picture on there but with my luck no thanks.
These groups save over a hundred a year. The animals are very grateful for they know they have saved their lives.
The do euthanize some that are brought in that physically are to far gone to save or show a vicious side. They will not let any that they know have the pit bull in their make up or they think but are not sure if they do or not. Sometimes it is hard to tell be adopted. In some states having or bringing in a pit is illegal.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

All of our critters are rescues. Outside of privately owned pet shops, I don't know of any around here that sell dogs or cats. The big chain shops allow adoption agencies space.
We have dog parks here, and most of them are pretty good at self-policing idiot owners. I only took my dog there once, she's very friendly but it made her very nervous to be suddenly surrounded by everybody checking out the new kid. Since she's a pit, any incident would have been blamed on her.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...it may make one wonder if there is a correlation of some kind with decreasing family size...

[mmhmm]

I've got cats, and they're strictly indoor cats, so I'm not particularly troubled by regulations. Still, I don't think they're a bad thing, necessarily. There's a responsibility involved with taking on a pet to raise, just as there's a responsibility involved when one decides to have children. If you can't afford it, or don't want to be bothered, it might be a good idea to reconsider. Pets are expensive even when no regulation is involved (again, just like kids!). Costs for yearly veterinary checks, handling of illnesses or emergencies, and the increased costs of aging pets can be daunting. Food costs are rising, and to feed a healthy diet is not cheap. The regulations don't bother me half as much as the thought of domestic animals languishing in shelters, or put to death because nobody wants them.

[txbo]

Last week the news said, pets in homes now outnumber children in homes.

[mmhmm]

Hee! Don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, txbo. I guess pets are a little bit cheaper to raise, and they won't ask to borrow the car! ;D

[hello fromWarsaw]

For the first time more residences have dogs than children- I wouldn't worry too much. Reasonable regulation is a good thing.
Landlords seem to be more and more difficult about it though...

[billisonboard]

Jun 4, 2011 14:27:53 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hee! Don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, txbo. I guess pets are a little bit cheaper to raise, and they won't ask to borrow the car! ;D

Sure they never ask to borrow it but mine are constantly demanding to go for rides.

[mmhmm]

I own my home so don't have to worry about landlords; however, I can understand where they come from. Some people just don't take care of their pets (and, too often, their children, as well). Pets left to their own devices can do some damage to rental properties, and the owner of the rental has a right to try to protect his/her property. One can usually find a place willing to accept pets if one has good references to offer and is willing to pay a fee up front to cover any possible damage done by the pets. When I was renting, I always got my fees back without issue. That's been quite awhile ago, though, and I don't know what it's like today.

[marshabar1]

Jun 4, 2011 11:31:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

The only person I knew who was really into animal rights did become a vegetarian was also a die hard pet owner. He had three or 4 cats with his wife.

Funny! K!

[mmhmm]

Jun 4, 2011 14:46:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 4, 2011 14:27:53 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hee! Don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, txbo. I guess pets are a little bit cheaper to raise, and they won't ask to borrow the car! ;D

Sure they never ask to borrow it but mine are constantly demanding to go for rides.

I feel your pain, billis, but from a different perspective. Mine all line up to threaten my life if I even look like I'm thinking about putting one (or all) of their number in that evil, noisy, smelly moving machine!

[mmhmm]

Hadn't thought of that, toughtimes, but it sure makes sense!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I wonder what they classify as leaving a dog along too long?

[handyman2]

There is a saying and my observation says it is true( when the kids move out they are replaced with a cat or dog.)
Working with shelters I find many adopted pets are gointg to retired seniors. I cannot say they are less trouble or cheaper but they do fill an empty space in the home. Sometimes I think they are doted on more than the kids.

[bring in the new year]

Marshabar,

I haven't had the time to do all the references so let me on with the first.

According to the Oklahoma City website, they euthanized 17,000 cats and dogs a year at a cost of about $176 per animal to catch, house, adopt or euthanize.

That's roughly $3 million a year for euthanasias.

Dancin mama, yes, your vet did give you rabies tags when your pet got vaccinated. However, I have a number of owners who only remember their pet needs to be vaccinated when the notice comes from the county about renewing their license. That means they ignored the postcard from us which usually comes a few weeks before that.

In MD, rabies is prevalent in wild animals and people have died from it in the last few years.

There are a lot of unwanted animals out there in shelters. In the animal hospital we see rescue animals who have been adopted and they can take weeks to work out the medical problems, and months to work out the behavior problems. To people who are responsible with their animals, I'm sure all this talk of spay and neutering sounds anti pet, even as not tying them up in the yard sounds anti pet. (BTW - what do you think the average summer temperature is in Albuquerque?) But to those of us who have to work even second hand as I am with the after effects of backyard breeders and careless owners, it seems like animal cruelty to do it the old way.

Laws are usually written by the Humane Society/Rescue groups who go into places you don't want to know about.

Also, as was mentioned on another thread, female unspayed dogs can be subject to something called pyometra (I may have the spelling wrong). It's either expensive to treat or fatal. There really is a reason people push for spays and neuters.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

[DVM gone riding]

as a vet I fully support the ban against retail sells of dogs. I would give an exception for a "consignment" set up where there was NEVER allowed more then four puppies in a store at any one time. They turn these into "impulse" buys something very bad for the dogs and many many many cute little puppies in "pet shops" are puppy mill puppies shipped in from out of state. I also support laws restricting travel of puppies under 6 months of age unaccompanied, this would stop the online sale of dogs that again are PRIMARY puppy mill puppies, you should be required to visit the female and home of any puppy you are considering buying and if it is abominable DO NOT buy the dog you are NOT 'rescuing' it you are simply perpetuating a bad situation.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Jun 5, 2011 12:28:33 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

as a vet I fully support the ban against retail sells of dogs. I would give an exception for a "consignment" set up where there was NEVER allowed more then four puppies in a store at any one time. They turn these into "impulse" buys something very bad for the dogs and many many many cute little puppies in "pet shops" are puppy mill puppies shipped in from out of state. I also support laws restricting travel of puppies under 6 months of age unaccompanied, this would stop the online sale of dogs that again are PRIMARY puppy mill puppies, you should be required to visit the female and home of any puppy you are considering buying and if it is abominable DO NOT buy the dog you are NOT 'rescuing' it you are simply perpetuating a bad situation.