Proposed bad law, it will have little impact on overcrowded shelters and punishes responsible Gentlemen/Madam breeders(the term "hobby breeders" sounds really lame). Vigorous enforcement of leash laws is what is needed with heavy fines for dogs allowed to roam at large which is the responsibility of local county/city governments and not the Commonwealths. Just another law to squeez more money from the law abiding citizen

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2765

As being an avid advocate of spay and neuter, I think if they appointed a team of people in charge of spay and neuter laws it would be best. This is my ideal scenario:

A mandatory spay and neuter law with exception. exceptoins include:
A written application mandatory for exempt to be reviewed by the committee
- a working dog, bred with a working dog of the same breed for the purpose of a working litter.
- conformation dogs, bred ONLY when champed, and to a champion mate, with the purpose of showing in conformation
- Service dogs, mixed or pure (they often have lab/golden crosses)

Personaly I think conformation showing in the US is total crap and VERY bad for the breed and the individual dogs.. if it were up to me the dog would have to be titled in CD or CDX and must be titled in a field that the dog was originaly intended.. but that's just me. But considering half the country in involved in conformation showing the bill would never be passed unless you allowed conformation dogs to breed.

That would be my ideal situaion. Mixed breeds and pet dogs should never be bred, and I think having an application and maybe interview process done by people VERY knowlegable in the field of working and service dogs to determine if a person should breed or not would be fantastic. This would be tremendously helpfull to the thousands of pet dogs bred for selfish reasons.

I also agree that strict leash laws would help immensly.

Another pointless law that will be ineffective even if it comes to fruition. The people who are really significantly contributing to the problem in this country are the same people who's dogs are on the news for mauling children. These people are not going to follow the law anyhow. It's the same as the "dangerous dog insurance" idea. The folks with the dogs that are really dangerous are not going to be standing in line buying insurance in case their dog bites someone. The responsible people whose dogs probably won't ever cause an issue, but who are of a "dangerous breed" are the ones who will follow the law. SO, what does that accomplish?

I agree about spaying and neutering shelter dogs. No reason for them to reproduce, and shelters get their share of bargain hunters who figure they'll just get a different one if this one doesn't work out. But seriously, who is going to put this into practice? How are they really going to decide who's a hobby breeder and who's legit, and won't the "hobby breeders" just have more litters to get out of the category??? Dumb,dumb,dumb.

 Quote:

That would be my ideal situaion. Mixed breeds and pet dogs should never be bred, and I think having an application and maybe interview process done by people VERY knowlegable in the field of working and service dogs to determine if a person should breed or not would be fantastic. This would be tremendously helpfull to the thousands of pet dogs bred for selfish reasons.

"One of the greatest delusions of the world is the HOPE that the EVILS of this world are to be CURED BY LEGISLATION." Thomas B. Reed 1886


Hmm, and what about the studies that show that neutering is not the panacea for all ills, in fact it can increase health risks in some dogs as well as increase some temperament issues? At what age is your decision made? Once you neuter- that's it, no going back when the dog qualifies later. We each have our own individual idea of bad breeding practices- so who's right? You open that door and it will never shut.

Oh yeah- define "pet dogs" . Is that one that isn't titled? What titles do you consider? Or a dog that has a disqualifying fault according to an arbitrary breed standard (I have a dog that is DQed in the US- but NOWHERE else in the world - does that make her a pet?)?

And now another quote... "It is easier to get the masses to believe in big lies than small ones" . Any guesses on who said that?

it was A.H. I think or at least one of his cabinet members

 Quote:

it was A.H. I think or at least one of his cabinet members

That was quick- yeah- you got it. From what I heard, it was himself. And it worked.

There is no reasonable scenario where legislation like this is a good idea. You can't put together a little committee to say who can and can't own/sell intact animals, or any other variation on the idea. Not only is it a bad idea, but anytime we allow any part of the government to further regulate and legislate our lives, it should be looked at with the hardest and most intense scrutiny.

I had a feeling my idea would be looked down apon. And I completely agree that it would be impossible to enforce such a scenario because of the many limitations. Therefor, the only thing we can do is educate people.

There has GOT to be a legit reason that America has the worst overpopulation of any country in the world. Maybe it's just a matter of studying American's view of animals compared to that of the rest of the world? I don't know..