Quote:

I agree with many of you here, we should be given some sort of test to obtain a dog license. That makes perfect sense.

Be very careful what you wish for. Do you really want to start down the slippery slope of who can own a dog and who can't?

While it may begin with the most "obvious" and flagrant offenders where does it end, who decides the criteria for the test, and do you REALLY want to leave that decision up to the government?

It sounds good but what it leads to is more BS legislation/regulation...and you, me, and many others here may find ourselves on the wrong side of what passes for PC. No thanks!


Editing to add I think it would be great meeting up with people from this area. Connie would HAVE to be there. I want to give her a big hug and thanks for all the great advice

Hey Julio, I don't think you want to give these people the ability to decide who owns dogs and who doesnt. Who gets to decide? This Idiot who wrote AB1634 (who also wants to outlaw lightbulbs) or the people that jab rubber hands into a dogs food when they're eating to test temperment. I already pay for a license, it's twice as much because he's intact. Sorry for the rant Julio,I'm in California and these politcians drive me crazy.

Hey guys, I think me and Julio and whoever is for licensing mean well. I think if it were required to be educated on the breed of dog you choose to own and get a license for that dog, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BSL. I think that would have kept all the irresponsible owners from getting their hands on those breeds and giving them the bad rep they have.

I know we have a lot people in ofc who have no clue what they are proposing, but I still think it's a good idea. Most of the time the problem is not the pet, its the owner and if the owner takes the time to get educated, there *should* less problems. We on Leerburg, love our animals and go beyond learning for the well being of our pets, us and anyone in contact w/us, but not everyone does the same.

Just my .02 cents.

You think it's a good idea to shut down ALL small breeders and leave the puppy mills and the BYBs going? I think you need to look at the issue more closely. Go to saveourdogs.net

God bless
Ginny

No Ginny, I think you need to look at this thread more closely. I don't think it's a good idea to shut down small breeders and demand all non approved group, or non-registered pets be de-sexed. I am talking about a way to improve responsible pet ownership. Start reading where Jim Thomas posted. Thanks.

This is tough, because I think that the nueter laws are an attempt to stop the unwanted pet population (9 million are killed every year.) The problem is that only the law abiding citizens will neuter and they probably wouldn't breed irresponsibly anyway. In my experience with rescue work, It's the low-income, less educated people who let their dogs roam, don't nueter when they should and purposely let their mix-breed and poor quality dogs breed. I doubt those people will fix their dogs because of this law.... There needs to be a better way.

Nation wide only about 4% or so license their dogs and cats. Compliance is very low on these ordinances.
Laws need to reflect good stewardship of our animals and focus on dealing with the problems in an authoritative way. Make mistakes and you get serious fines, and or loss of the priveledge to own and maintain dogs. Who cares if a resposible dog owner/enthusiast exists peacefully without notice with ten GSD's at their home all intact if they are never a problem?
If a person owns ONE dog but allows it to roam, live in filth, and disrupt the neighborhood non-stop with barking, car chasing, etc. then that one dog owner whether their dog is neutered or not is a problem.
The current trend of local dog/cat laws are directed at STOPPING dog ownership one little bit at a time.
I find it a bit ironic that the same people who want to neuter everything also want no breeding, and all dogs adopted from the shelters. Seems that if they get their way there will be no dogs, and of course nothing bred for temperment, character, and working ability. Our working companions will cease to exist, and the purebred dog will cease to exist under such strategies.
The focus is to cease dog ownership through proliferation of local laws. There is an agenda here folks. It is anti pet ownership.

Hey Alex, not to be confrontational but this bill does nothing towards responsible ownership. I don't know if you read the actual bill at the cal. assembly web site but its garbage. we already have dangerous dog laws to try and ensure safety and more laws that are not enforced than anyone even knows about. Every city and county in california can already pass breed specific spay and neuter laws if they want. This is a sneaky attempt to put an end to dog sports, shows and pure bred dogs period.

Hey Steve, no offense taken and you're right. I understand what the bill is trying to do and I completely disaprove of it. I guess this thread began to veer off it's original course and began talking about enforcing responsible pet ownership, which is what I was talking about.

I agree w/what Vanessa said and I figure educating pet owners as a requirement before owning a pet along with de-sexing animals who should not be bred would be a great place to start. Not just making it mandatory to de-sex ALL ANIMALS.