Take a look at the requirements for the license for an unaltered dog! http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2854 This could potentially spread to other areas and needs to stop before it gets started! The contacts for the people you can write to are at the bottom.

Considering how much it costs to maintain even just one single dog in an animal shelter (I think it costs something like an average of $200ish a week at the shelter I volunteer and foster for), $60 is a drop in the bucket. While I don't always agree with "mandatory" laws, the fact is, the vast majority of pet owners (i.e.-the ones who just want a companion animal in their house, not ones would would do competitive obedience, show them, do agility, police work, etc) have no need for an intact dog and most so-called "breeders" have no business mating their dogs in the first place. I would support the $60 increase for licensing.

$60? Is that it? Bah, it costs more to spay/neuter!! People are just gonna license their dogs instead of fixing them.

I think you guys are missing part of it; did you see the requirements you have to meet? It's not just paying $60.

Wow. I just read the restrictions and (i can't believe this) I totally agree with the AKC's position here. I do believe in spaying and neutering but all this law will do is hurt responsible breeders and owners. I would have no problem with the proposed law if it was just paying more for intact animals as long as the city was currently enforcing it's leash laws as well as any other dog-related laws already on the books.

Sadly, more and more of our freedom to choose is being taken away from us in this country. This is just one more example.

 Quote:

Take a look at the requirements for the license for an unaltered dog! http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2854 This could potentially spread to other areas and needs to stop before it gets started! The contacts for the people you can write to are at the bottom.

Let me check my understanding of this law. So, all dogs must be positively identifiable via microchipping and/or tattooing. So far so good to me.
Second, all dogs should be sterilized *unless* the owner is prepared to pay a licence fee currently three times the rate of one for a sterilized one $60 and they'll only be granted that licence in ANY one of the following cases:

1. The dog is an actual working dog in any capacity.

OR:

2. The dog has been entered in at least one competition for any recognized sport or conformation event in the last year, regardless of how the dog does.

OR:

3. The dog has earned a title, any title in any recognised field.

OR:

4. You are a member of any recognised breed club with affliation to any nationally recognised registry that asks members to have some standards, no matter how minimal (other than just paying membership dues), to breed registrable puppies, regardless of the quality or working ability of any animals you may own.

AND:

5. There are no complaints about your dog (ie it doesn't raise hell with the neighbours, hasn't been found wandering the streets, you obey leash laws and have it under your control).

So, if I'm understanding correctly, irresponsible owners are not let off the hook by these proposed laws -- these are in addition to existing laws. The additional requirements are so minimal that I'd be very hesitant myself to buy a dog from a breeder who couldn't meet at least one. For a moment I worried about people who breed unregistered Mals for service work but then I realised that entering a dog for even a Schutzhund BH would cover one fine.

There's some things I don't like, like the lack of an age limit for when any of the conditions should be met (I'm thinking that by 3 years would be nice and give people who like to excuse their dogs as 'slow-maturing' a fair chance), but it doesn't seem to me an unfair proposition at face value.

Its practical enforceability on the other hand, I would like to see more detail on. That's where the devil is.


Just my 1p.

If what Naa-Dei Nikoi is all accurate then I see no downside... because it sounds like even if your dog fails the trial, the dog can still remain intact under those laws. I'd rather trial and fail than neuter... who knows, maybe I won't fail.

I do think that the lack of age requirements are a little off... alot of people don't even do anything with their dog for the first year of their life, so if training starts at 12 months then depending on the dog and the handler it could be another 2 years before the dog would even be solid enough to trial in anything.

This only serves to restrict the law-abiding. Those that currently break the registration laws will have even more of an incentive to do so.

No complaints against an owner.. that's great! All it takes is a minor argument with a neighbor who can complain to the city and before you know it your dog's sterile. Great..

Good start, but needs a LOT of work, IMO.

I agree, I read the restrictions and I'm not really phased by them. This is just me, but personally, I likewise wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder who didn't fit the following criteria:

-had all the appropriate health tests done on the parents (and hopefully grandparents).
-parents were both temperament tested and at the very least have their CGC or equivalent.
-were either show titled or, for working dogs, inspected by 3 knowledgeable judges on the breed to at least make sure they fit the conformation.
-had also competed and hopefully titled in at least something else (anything from field trials to agility to Schutzhund to Therapy Dog International)

The thing to remember again is the vast vast majority of pet owners don't want a working dog or a star show dog. They want a companion animal that they can go pet, exercise with, love on, whatever. There is just no need for these sorts of casual pet owners to own intact animals and these same casual pet owners are more likely to have an "oops" kind of accidental litter that fills up the shelters than dog savvy folks who do work or compete or whatever with their dogs. The rather small minority of breeders who actually do some or all of the above are not what is causing animal shelters to have to kill 5-10 million dogs or whatever a year. It's these "oops" litters that do. So in theory, I don't have a problem with having to meet these restrictions and the added fee. Just how to enforce it other than when the dog gets turned into animal control is the question.

the problem with this type of legislation is that it puts further requirements of people who are already responsible, and will be ignored by irresponsible owners, just as they ignore current laws. in effect, responsible owners are being impacted for no reason. those pet owners who are on the edge will teeter to irresponsible because of the expense.
legislation that would actually effect irresponsible dog owner/breeders would be much more helpful.
these laws are being proposed by peta activists whose actual goal is to make having dogs illegal. they would like to eliminate dogs in cities.
this is america. regardless of who you are, the freedoms protected here are priceless. give up even one small freedom, like our right to have, own, and breed our dogs, and we are on the road to losing all of our rights.