Click here to Register

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory » You May Never Own an Intact Dog Again!‏
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2009, 05:52 PM   #11
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
I think a better solution would be to 'fine' the unaltered dog owner a fee equal to the amount of spay/neutering plus a significant extra as penalty, it would give the owner the option to pay up for the option to breed or to not pay as much and go home with an altered dog.

Say for example:
$300 for taking home an unaltered dog from the impound
$150 for altering the dog while impounded

If people see that they are being given the option and will save some cash to boot, I think it would go along way to reduce overpopulation. They would still have to pay the fines for allowing the dog to run loose though.

Unfortunately many pet owners who are struggling may just end up abandoning the animal because they cannot afford the fines, fees, etc.

Too often the end of the story is where the laws start when it should be before the dog (or cat) even is born that laws are applied:

1. The sale of pets in retail outlets should be made illegal. Agencies and associations strictly controlled and monitored by third party government auditors should only be allowed to buy and sell pets.
2. Breeders should have to go through a strict licensing process and be restricted as to the quantity of breeding any one female can have in a given time frame, number of females allowed to breed and the regular monitoring by third party auditors of the conditions of breeding facility.
3. Puppymills and byb should be put out of business.
4. All non-purebreds should be spayed or neutered.
5. Breeding of the females and males should be controlled based on standards decided by health, breed standards, and temperment. Failure of any one of these traits would result in the immediate sterilization of the proposed breeding female or male.


But I know that this will never happen because people will claim that their freedoms are being trampled on.
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 09:24 PM   #12
Jr_K9_Expert
Been Around A While
 
Jr_K9_Expert's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California, USA
Posts: 4,285
Send a message via AIM to Jr_K9_Expert
Those are some good ideas. I personally have no problem with this bill. As for the position of the AKC on the subject, well I think its more of an issue about freedoms than being the largest registry...if people continue thinking that AKC papers are proof of quality well then thats those misinformed people's fault not the registry.

In short I just think that if people are irresponsible enough to let their dog get impounded (For whatever reason) then they aren't responsible enough to own an intact dog. Period. As for NEVER owning an intact dog....idk THAT seems a bit hard but its not like they NEED an intact a dog. Afterall what we enjoy is their company not their being intact....I hope
-Steven



My dog article site - K9Domain
My dog blog - Dog Notes
Jr_K9_Expert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 01:27 AM   #13
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furbilator View Post
5. Breeding of the females and males should be controlled based on standards decided by health, breed standards, and temperment. Failure of any one of these traits would result in the immediate sterilization of the proposed breeding female or male.
Nonsense. Breed standards mean nothing to many.
The dog world isn't the exclusive property of show people. I get sick of the show people trying to force their standards on everybody else.
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 02:05 AM   #14
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
Breed standards are set by breed clubs. They may or may not be "show" people.
If you think breed standards are not important, then you would not have a problem with people breeding Labs that are 32 inches at the shoulder and 175 lbs? It would be okay if their legs were overly short and they were effectively unable to run?
It should be okay to breed a female GSD with a roached back to a male GSD that's aggressive? People that want quality dogs would likely balk at buying the pups.
No problem with breeding two Boxers with undershot lower jaws and protruding eyes?
I'm not trying to make light of your comment, Labman, just trying to make some sense of it.

Silence is golden,
Duct tape is silver.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 05:07 PM   #15
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labman View Post
Nonsense. Breed standards mean nothing to many.
The dog world isn't the exclusive property of show people. I get sick of the show people trying to force their standards on everybody else.
Breed standards are not wholy set by those in the show community. They all have standards related to their breed that make them what they are and able to do what they do. Standards set down by the field competitors can be different than those in the show community. For example; dogs that may not have the perfect head structure (in the show ring) may have a more powerful jaw which is desirable for heavy waterfowl retrieval. Deeper chests are more desirable for powerful swimming action. Longer legs are more desirable for deep terrain and speedy retrievals. I could go on.

The point is that without some sort of guidelines, measurements or 'standards' we would all resort back to the mutts of no particular breed. If that were the case then you Labman would not be raising labradors as guide dogs now would you!? You would also lose many of the traits that were deliberately selected and BRED into labs which makes them the great guide dogs that they are and great water dogs too. I understand your displeasure with some show dog breeders and thier standards and appreciate that there are those out in the show/breeding community that don't give a rat's backside about anything but winning, heck the same could be said about some field show competitors too! However, until the world is perfect we will have to compromise and find a solution that benefits not only our needs and wants but more importantly the health and beauty of the dogs. Sticking your head in the sand and continually saying 'me don't like show dogs' does nothing to help the dogs, educate or get your ideas heard. Enough already please!
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 05:14 PM   #16
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Also,

I still firmly believe that dogs should require a more rounded competition than by just looks alone. Especially those dogs that were bred for a purpose such as retrievers.

A competition which included health checks, conformation, obiedience, and a breed specific skill test should be the only mark of a quality dog and good enough to breed.

But to use a good example as to why looks isn't the be all end all is to look to the horse world. Man O' War was said to be a glue horse, a horse too ugly and gangly to be worth keeping alive even with his pedigree. He turned into the greatest race horse of all time.
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 06:29 PM   #17
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
It may never be a perfect world, but putting the force of law behind the show breeders standards would be a giant step in the wrong direction.

Note. I have often wondered if Labs' ability to quietly wait until they are needed comes from their hunting heritage. Perhaps the ones that jumped up and started barking before the ducks were close enough took a sudden exit from the gene pool.
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 04:13 PM   #18
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labman View Post
Note. I have often wondered if Labs' ability to quietly wait until they are needed comes from their hunting heritage. Perhaps the ones that jumped up and started barking before the ducks were close enough took a sudden exit from the gene pool.

Yup. Initially their swimming ability was for fishing net retrieval. Their coats, tails and toes were all selected to aid in this job. Their ears were selected to reduce water infiltration into the ear while swimming. Later the colour of their coats was selected to help blend them into the grassy fall backgrounds. We have always selected those traits which would better serve us humans.

I have, with the exception of one dog, only selected from field trial stock and even those animals have gone through a dramatic change since I was a kid (20years ago). When I was little the labs were a lot bigger and stronger than they are now mainly because of the influence of American field competitors and breeders wanting dogs that are super fast on retrieval. The smaller dogs are much faster and gain more points and win during competitions than their larger competitors so unfortunately they are the ones that are selected to breed. However in a real life hunt, not a competition retrieving a light weight plug/dummie, a dog which is bigger can retrieve a larger bird, slog through thick heavy reeds and deep faster water and maintain that stamina for longer than the smaller dogs. But unfortunately, the larger Canadian line for labs is all but died out because of the breeding for competition and the dramatic decline in waterfowl hunting which had once created a need for those larger more powerful dogs.

So as I stated before, not every breed standard has been manipulated by show competitors, I give labs as an example because that is the breed I am the most familiar. I'm sure that other breeds have characteristics that have changed for the better or worse but it isn't always the fault of the show ring judges/breeders/competitors.
All messages have been lab tested and approved!
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 06:48 PM   #19
Jr_K9_Expert
Been Around A While
 
Jr_K9_Expert's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California, USA
Posts: 4,285
Send a message via AIM to Jr_K9_Expert
An interesting side conversation but one we've had too many times and with more or less the same people
-Steven



My dog article site - K9Domain
My dog blog - Dog Notes
Jr_K9_Expert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2009, 06:53 PM   #20
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
Yes, the best working dogs may not be the best in any competition. I hope they never manage to get laws through only allowing those competing in something to breed dogs. I often wonder if some of the suggested regulations are less concerned with the dogs and more wanting to reduce competition. Happens in many other areas too.

Last edited by Labman : 09-18-2009 at 09:01 PM. Reason: clarity
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 PM.