Well, here's my thoughts. While there might not be enough manpower to enforce it, I would still prefer that there be a rule of sorts, because in general, when rules get broken there are consequences.

For example: You lose your licence for whatever reason; you're not supposed to drive. And there's not enough manpower to go and check on everyone that's lost their license. BUT, if you get caught driving without a license, then there is court time, fines and possibly jail time, depending on the offense.

But if there was nothing saying that you couldn't drive after some major offense, then what would stop you from driving anyway? Even if you got caught over and over and over?

And most of these people would get caught owning another dog...how many times have we heard of the rinse and repeat cycle with irresponsible owners? But if they got caught the second time, well, then they can tell it to the judge instead of just having yet another dog taken away and possibly euthanized.

It's not perfect, but it's something. These people need "one strong correction instead of a thousand nagging ones!"

 Quote: amber morgan

These people need "one strong correction instead of a thousand nagging ones!"

I totally agree, there was an episode where the judge sentenced a gal to thirty days in jail with just bread and water to eat......I think it was for starving horses (might have been dogs though).....I thought that was a great punishment and it should be utilized more......

 Quote: carol boche

 Quote: amber morgan

These people need "one strong correction instead of a thousand nagging ones!"

I totally agree, there was an episode where the judge sentenced a gal to thirty days in jail with just bread and water to eat......I think it was for starving horses (might have been dogs though).....I thought that was a great punishment and it should be utilized more......

Really???! That's fantastic! While this principle *can* easily be taken to extremes, an eye for an eye certainly makes a crystal clear point!

*And Amber, your corrections analogy is brilliant ...

~Natalya

My personal opinion is that the Ranger probably said *Something must be done re the dogs!* and the family concerned have interpreted that to mean - Rehome them rather than train them!

Oh no - PLEASE don't even suggest that she might get another puppy - I hadn't even thought of that possibility and now I need to go have a little lie down!

I 100% agree that before you can register a dog you should have to sit some kind of *driving test* or perhaps the cost of registering it could be tied to passing the test so as to encourage people to do so. Of course for most idiot owners who don't bother registering their dogs in the first place - I doubt that much could be done.

From the ranger's point of view they probably don't care if the dog is rehomed, de-barked , trained or eithanised - just so long as it is no longer a problem in THEIR jurisdiction!

 Quote: brookemcowley

Oh no - PLEASE don't even suggest that she might get another puppy - I hadn't even thought of that possibility and now I need to go have a little lie down!

I'm not surprised after she got rid of her first dog. She might get another puppy, but it will be a small breed. It happens alot when people say " Well, the first one was too big and too much work for me, but small dog is easier to take care of."