Philip White ([info]philipmw) wrote,
@ 2008-06-13 14:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Dallas' proposed ordinance
I got this in my inbox today:

The Dallas City Council plans to consider a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance as early as Wednesday, June 18. Sportsmen must take action now in order to prevent this draconian ordinance from being approved.

The proposed mandate is being sought by radical animal "rights" and anti-hunting organizations and is an affront to our hunting heritage and private property rights. With very limited exceptions, this measure requires every dog older than six months to be spayed or neutered. Owners hoping to breed their dogs at some point during their lives would be required to apply annually for an "intact" permit referred to as a "breeding permit" costing $500. Permits will not be issued for any dogs that are not of a pure breed recognized by a national breed registry such as the American Kennel Club.


(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]thepastrypixie
2008-06-14 01:10 am UTC (link)
Awesome!

But I seriously doubt it will pass.

Edited at 2008-06-14 01:10 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]philipmw
2008-06-14 01:14 am UTC (link)
For liberty's sake, I hope it doesn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thepastrypixie
2008-06-14 01:21 am UTC (link)
Our "liberty" causes millions of animals to be killed every year because people can't be bothered to spay/neuter. If people aren't going to be responsible enough to speuter their pets then someone is going to have to step up. But, mandatory spay/neuter laws, while excellent in theory, aren't practical for a number of reasons. Primarily because the humane societies are so short-staffed as it is that they don't have the ability to police it and if it was made the responsibility of veterinarian's to report than those violating the law wouldn't get their pets the medical care that they need for fear of being reported. Ideally more low-cost spay/neuter clinics would be opened as these programs have been much more effective than mandatory spayneuter laws.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]philipmw
2008-06-14 01:28 am UTC (link)
I don't disagree with most of your points.

What about "Permits will not be issued for any dogs that are not of a pure breed recognized by a national breed registry such as the American Kennel Club."? What's the point of this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thepastrypixie
2008-06-14 01:47 am UTC (link)
To keep people from breeding mutts. A lot of puppy mills are breeding "rare" mixes and by making it against the law to breed the puppies they are making it makes the puppies less desirable. Other mills breed mixes to mixes to make even more mixes and then marketing them as a new "breed". By requiring that the dogs breed be registered with a respectable breed registry they are discouraging the purposeful breeding of Malti-poo's, Chorkies, Puggles, Golden-doodles, etc. There are people that spend thousands of dollars for these mixes because they are "new and rare" breeds, and actually get mad when their dogs are referred to as mutts, which is exactly what they are.

It also discourages the ever so popular "miracle of life" births that occur when someone just wants to breed their dog/cat so that their children can see the cycle. The vast majority of the population owns mutts and by banning their breeding it would, theoretically, cause a large drop in litters.

Edited at 2008-06-14 01:50 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]philipmw
2008-06-14 01:51 am UTC (link)
I did not know about the breeding industry. This is interesting.

Two questions:

1) What is wrong with mixes? Is it an ethical issue? Can't a dog be both a mutt and a new breed? Is this practice harming the dogs?

2) This is more of an observation than a question, but traditionally making something illegal makes it more desirable, such as with underage alcohol consumption and drugs. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thepastrypixie
2008-06-14 02:07 am UTC (link)
1. There is nothing wrong with mixes persay, only with making more of them when there are soooo many in shelters already. A dog could be both a mut and a new breed, but in order for them to qualify as a new breed they must breed true, which unfortunately, is not something that is easy to just slap together. The cross-breeding doesn't harm the dogs at all, the harm comes from the sheer number of dogs being bred.

2. It could, but since the ability to breed the dog is part of what makes them valuable, being illegal to breed would reduce the value. The vast majority of the popular mixed breed dogs are under 10 lbs and have high-risk pregnancies that need veterinary supervision, and, quite often, surgical intervention. If you can't take your mixed breed bitch to the vet because a puppy is stuck than you are less likely to breed. Most of the people that breed, breed for a quick buck or because they don't know any better, if it becomes too expensive/dangerous, than the hope is that people will stop.

Responsible breeders, that do genetic testing and breed for the betterment of the breed don't make any money on their litters and are actually lucky to break even. They have to pay to enter shows to demonstrate that their dogs conform to breed standards, test for diseases, and give personal attention to each of their breeding pets. They also don't breed a female more than 2 or 3 times because any more than that is unhealthy for her.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]philipmw
2008-06-14 02:08 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the informative discussion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thepastrypixie
2008-06-14 02:10 am UTC (link)
Anytime :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…