that was 16,000 animals not dogs.

Nancy

I would love to save them all myself.

"Animal People" in the March 2008 issue carries advertising from the North Shore Animal League, Best Friends, and just about everyone. Those people are not neutral and Best Friends has done things that upset me. The full page ad from Spay/USA claims that there were 3.7 million shelter deaths in (I presume) 2007. (Animal People asks for direct donations also.) Animal People asks its readers to help abolish fur farming in Ireland, and that is definitely NOT neutral.

I didn't know that breed specific legislation had been passed by the U.S. Supreme Court. What's one more knife in the Constitution anyway? This court has been talking its way around the Constitution and human rights for how long now?

Act like owners have no rights and eventually government will treat owners like they have no rights.

I will reiterate what I hate about the so-called animal protection movement. They mistake their perception that abuse exists for divine authority to control everything that people do with animals. If people would think with their brains about this thing they would realize what this means. It means that people who can only see the "bad" side of ownership, who don't know anything about actual animal husbandry, are going to force themselves on us, force us to accept their way of doing things. They will even get to abuse our police forces to enforce their wrong-headed and sick policies. They are the ones who must be stopped.

And here's one more thing: When we stop more animals from being born in order to stop shelter deaths, how many must fail to be born in order for that purpose to be served? It might be two or more who are not born in order to save the one.

"make examples of people who are hoarders"

What is a hoarder? The obedience instructor/competitor I know who had most of her 13 Min Pins 'rescued' because she was a 'hoarder'? My friend who has 36 Aghans? These dogs get/got better care than most people who have 2 dogs. But many would classify them hoarders. I have 5 Hounds, many would think I am a hoarder as well. The limit laws do nothing for true hoarders, they have an OCD related mental illness and no law (nor "example") is going to take care of that. A number means little, I can easily manage a pack of 10, my neighbors struggle to take reasonable care of their one.

My neighbors have 8 kids and were given a free house because they are not able to care for all of them, yet I am told how many dogs I am able to handle.

"raise fines for people in cities who have unlicensed animals"

Well who dares tell the city how many dogs they have??? My local limit is 3 and I sure as heck am not going to be trotting in for licenses so that they can come and 'rescue' them. Any idiot can have a hoard of kids, but for DOGS we should need a license?

The ARs push for limit laws, (supposedly to stop the hoarders, which it doesn't, a law is not going to cure a mental illness) all the while they rant about too many dogs in shelters. DUH!

"enforce leash laws increase fines so they are astronomical for a second offense"

I am totally with you on this one! First fine $100, second fine $300, etc. Use this money to help the animals! If you hit people hard in the wallet, you bet they would learn, the problem is, is that this would be VERY unpopular and would likely be the end of a political career for whoever passed it.

I only walk my dogs during the winter when it is cold and snowy, because every time we walk in nice weather we are charged by strange dogs and I am scared for their safety. The owner is usually yelling frantically at their dog who is totally ignoring them. I hate the fact I am not able to walk my dogs because others are unable to control theirs and wish the ACOs would DO THEIR JOB and get these animals off the streets.

"Raise license fees in communities for people keeping unspayed or neutered pets unless they show proof of showing their animals or proof they are a non mill breeder"

Why should I have to pay large sums of money because my dogs aren't S/N? In Dallas, if this passes, it would cost me $2000 a year to have my dogs. My dogs aren't wandering the streets and breeding with the neighbors Lab.

It seems that the favored age of the showing proof you are showing a dog is 4 months. You can't even ENTER a 4 month old puppy in a show. And what about the rare breeds that aren't even able to be shown? What about obedience/agility/hunting dogs that aren't shown? What about the gorgeous girl you have who will never be shown because of an injury?

The problem isnt so much whether they are S/N or not, it is whether they let them wander or don't understand basic animal care. S/N doesn't make an owner responsible and having intact dogs doesn't make you irresponsible.

Leash laws are not new laws License fees are not new. If anything there would be less laws. The business would be self policing the fees would be higher for licensing if the animals weren't fixed just like they are now but they would be very high for unfixed and very low for fixed. I got a call from the city about a month ago saying my dog licence ws over due, I forgot to tell them my dog had died but I would have had a citation if I waited any longer and my dog would have been alive. These things need to be inforced and the costs increased.

"fees would be higher for licensing if the animals weren't fixed just like they are now but they would be very high for unfixed and very low for fixed."

Why should I be penalized for not putting my dogs under for an unneccesary, risky, elective surgery? Don't you think $500 per intact animal is excessive? Don't you think good breeders will be forced to S/N, resulting in less good breeders and a narrowing of the gene pool (less diversity tends to result in more health problems). I know I would have to S/N for such huge licensing fees, if I weren't already forced to stay under the city radar because of ridiculous limit laws.

With the leash laws, I am totally with you on that, it penalizes the people that are the problem, and not the responsible owners.

Not going for it.

I can't agree with punitive leash laws. It's sometimes very difficult to keep a dog in plus you have the fact that so-called neighbors actually maliciously release dogs.

These days it has been the trend for bitter, angry, malicious people to make the rules to govern animal ownership. The animal rights leaders are viciously exploitative. These are exactly the wrong people to make the rules. They ask people to be terrified of things that add up to being terrified of life, then let the animal rights activists take care of them. They get people like Oprah to participate in their programs without being honest, without telling everyone that this is the agenda of animal rights activists, which is explicit even on their websites. Had the phrase "animal rights" been used on that puppy mill show, Oprah knows that the show would have had no credibility.

Anyone who cares about animals has to fight to stop animal rights activists from making the rules.

Well hopefully someone will. Something needs to be done before bad breeders are the only ones left and we have a country filled with defective dogs. The facts are that sometime in 2009-2010 there will be some legislation that may not be a referendum put before the government of Wisconsin and with the sheer number of puppy mills growing in our state people will only see the bad and forget about the good. There will be a new set of laws no breeder or animal lover will like. It is better to to have breeders adding input than complaining when it is all over that they had no say and their business is ruined. If there is a referendum God help us all because people will be voting on something and will be voting to pass something that could ruin their own chances of ever having a normal pet.

hndlvr said,

"The problem isnt so much whether they are S/N or not, it is whether
they let them wander or don't understand basic animal care. S/N doesn't
make an owner responsible and having intact dogs doesn't make you
irresponsible."

I have said that very thing many, many times and ti seems to fall on deaf ears. I am not talking about this board, but others that I am on.

I am also in agreement with you about licensing. My dogs aren't altered, save for one, I don't breed nor do I show my dogs, but I would be required to pay $2000 if I lived in Dallas? Why exactly should I have to pay for a breeder's license if I don't breed?

This too I have said many times and all I get back is that all I care about is me, me, me and I'm not looking at the bigger picture.

I do see teh bigger picture, but my picture isn't the same as theirs apparently.

In Wisconsin licensing fees are ridiculously low. I just got off the phone with our city clerk and the price for licensing a fixed dog is $6 the cost for a dog that is not fixed is $13 how does this give any incentive to anyone to spay or neuter?I think if they would raise it to $100 for un spayed or neutered dogs and even donate that extra money to give discounts on the procedures at the local vet that would be incentive to fix your dog. Right now the fine for at large is $75 It stays the same and never goes up for repeat offenders.

"It's sometimes very difficult to keep a dog in"

Then as a responsible owner you do what you have to do to keep your dogs (and mine) safe. Put in a higher fence, tether (if it isn't ILLEGAL where you are), or take them out on lead. I have had dogs that would scale my 6ft wood fence, so I never had that dog out unless I was out supervising. It is not that difficult, it just takes time and dedication. Loose dogs are the source of many problems such as unwanted litters, dog attacks, and livestock killing. I have zero tolerance for roaming dogs, I should be able to take my leashed dogs for a walk in the summer without being charged every time.

"plus you have the fact that so-called neighbors actually maliciously release dogs."

If that is a problem, then padlock your fence. If you can't then supervise your dogs when they are out.

I have no tolerance for people whose dogs are repeatedly loose, it is a problem that they could solve if they were willing to put a little effort into it.

"anyone who cares about animals has to fight to stop animal rights activists from making the rules"

Agreed! That is why it is important to rigoriously enforce leash laws. If a roaming dog attacks, then you have the knee jerk reaction of breed bans or ridiculous DDLs. It is better to be proactive then reactive, and leash laws help to solve several problems.

"It is better to to have breeders adding input"

Of course it is. I think the breeders are not adding their input partly because they want to stay under the radar because they are over their pet limit of 2-3 and because we are seen as money grubber people who are only out to make a buck, you have seen it plain as day right here on this board. There were so few to show up in LA county because they are scared and hiding their dogs. Of course you always have the breeders who think "well this law won't affect me so I don't care".

The ones making the rules want the input of the 'experts' from the AR groups, and we can see how much they really know or care about animal husbandry.

Problem is if you raise it to much, you will find the drop rate in teh local shelter will skyrocket. Around here because it's rural, people will just dump their dogs or kill them. We pay $15.50 per intact dog. Since I currently have 5 dogs, 4 that are intact, that's $62.00 plus the $7.50 for our altered one. If they were to raise that amount to say $100 per intact pet, we couldn't afford to pay for their licenses and would more then likley give them up.

Is that what you want to see?

I will not alter my animals. I can keep them from breeding. So I should be penalized because I want to keep them intact?