There are many abandoned animals that PETA (and other organizations) euthanizes every year. These animals have mostly come from irresponsible owners who breed their animals without thought of the consequences of finding homes for them afterwards. Should people be forced to pay for a permit before being allowed to breed their pets and be forced to be accountable for their pets offspring or risk penalties and fines?
It might be difficult but is it a step in the right direction?
2007-10-29
12:10:00
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Love #me#, Hate #me#
6
in
Food & Drink
➔ Vegetarian & Vegan
robert f---ok yeah thanks for dropping by.
2007-10-29
12:30:08 ·
update #1
krister--agreed.
2007-10-29
12:32:04 ·
update #2
wine---I think that's a pessimistic viewpoint and if you ask me, the lady that has 1 dog too many deserves a fine whether anyone else gets a fine or not.
Local jurisdiction is the only possibility. I don't think a state mandate will be enforced.
2007-10-29
12:34:06 ·
update #3
I asked both PETA questions in pets too and one answerer had this idea regarding the permits:
"I think it should be a law to that with out a permit you have to have your pet neutered at 5 months old!"
What do you think?
2007-10-29
12:38:43 ·
update #4
jeff---it needs some kind of strict regulation.
2007-10-29
12:42:36 ·
update #5
The trend is moving that way already here in good ol' liberal CA. It's not a bad idea except that it won't ever accomplish the intended outcome. All it will succeed in doing is creating more gov't bureaucracy and put another burden on otherwise law abiding citizens.
As with any "lifestyle" type law regarding your town or neighborhood, the only people ever affected by the law are the minor offenders. It's not the guy breeding pit bulls to fight (OK, one guy got caught) that gets slapped with a ticket for unlicensed breeding, it's the regular neighbor that gets a ticket for having 3 dogs in a place where the max is 2, only because she has a beef with her neighbor who turned her in for no reason other than spite. So, the lady that takes care of and loves her three dogs now has to pay a fine and probably get rid of one. On the other hand, there is guy in the trailer out on the bad part of town that has 10 mangy dogs running around his place that hump the leg of anything walking by, but he'll never get caught because he's not a part of the regular "system."
I can see exactly what you are talking about being a reality very soon. Unfortunately, it would be another futile attempt to legislate responsibility among people that naturally have none.
2007-10-29 12:22:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
Something definately needs to be done. The "pet" industry keeps churning out baby animals who are purchased on a whim, ppl keep letting their own animals breed without considering the fate of the litters & I find this horrendously cruel & a sad waste of lives not to mention a terrible "lesson" for our kids. I've read that the #1 cause of death for cats in the US is euthanasia b/c there simply aren't enough homes for everone. Look @ the website of most rescue organizations & they're full of animals who need a home.
Ppl who insist on keeping unaltered cats or dogs should pay a fee every year & there should be more lowcost spay & neuter resources for ppl who need them-- our local humane society is wonderful but I'm told there is a several-week wait b/c so many pets need this surgery.
Most of our companion animals are rescues & the places we've adopted from usually ask a few questions to make sure their charges are getting a decent home. With our cats, there was an impressive amount of paperwork & usually a follow-up call to make sure everything was ok. Since these are living beings & not video games or toasters, the questions & phone calls seemed like a good idea.
2007-10-29 17:54:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Catkin 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
I think we need a couple more baby steps in the right direction to start doing this to take this longer step in the right direction. When people breed and sell they don't always tend to think of the buyer much and approve of them. I mean look at all of the Animal Cop shows on Animal Planet all of the owners the neglect their pets probably got them from irresponsible owners/breeders.
2007-10-29 12:17:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I do believe there should be laws and restrictions and fines. Absolutely. If people wont' be responsible on their own, we have to force them to take responsibility. It wouldn't be easy to enforce, but anything would be a step in the right direction.
My pets are speyed and neutered, and kept indoors.
I took five wild kittens and had them speyed/neutered. I am somewhat of an activist in this area. Tried to get the mom fixed, but she didn't fall for our trap, and eventually dissappeared. Haven't seen her since.
2007-10-30 02:36:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Shelly P. Tofu, E.M.T. 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes, good idea.
maybe the pre-requisites should include an animal husbandry course and require an annual licence renewal.
The "taxes" worry someone else has need not apply, it could be self financing.
I guess with chip technology all pets could be chipped so there would be no abandoning them in the streets - they would all be tracable.
I would want the fines to be high enough so that its cheaper to look after an animal than face a fine - $100 or so doesn't cut it with me....should be $5K, 10K or something.
Enforement would be another thing, but that shouldn't stop the law being introduced.
2007-10-29 23:12:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Michael H 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
i think if they had investigations in puppy and kitten mills to ensure the health of the animals it would elliminate some issues. in my neighborhood they have this one thing where u cant have more than ur acrage worth (1 acer= 1 large animal).
this makes sense 2 me. i think it is ok to breed because ppl have a high demand fo petagree animals. just dont breed them like crazy. O and dont fking kill them after they are no londer fertle dam it!!
Edit:
look if u are only breeding for profit and not giveing ur dogs the attention they deserve then fk off! k?
i agree wine!
2007-10-29 16:39:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Angry Vegetable 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I hardly think that whether or not I want to breed animals is any of the government's buisness. If there really is a problem here you need to find a different way to deal with it, it's not the government's problem.
2007-10-29 12:20:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by GrizzlyMint 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Only non-profit organizations should be allowed to breed animals.
All private parties should be prohibited from having unaltered companion animals.
All potential candidates for adoption should go through an application process and a humane officer should visit each home to make sure that the person has the appropriate tools and materials for caring for that animal.
Anyone that leaves their animal locked outside unsupervised should lose custody of that animal to be placed in foster care until humane authorities are convinced that they are sincere in their agreement to have the animal as a part of their family. If not, any adults involved will no longer be considered for adoption of a companion animal.
If only we could stop certain PEOPLE from breeding.
All adopters found to have physically abused a companion animal will be threatened with loss of custody of human children and will be watched closely by CPS.
Puppies should not be adopted until at least 4 months of age as the age period between 8 and 16 weeks is a crucial period for dogs to be exposed to as many things as possible in a positive manner. Improper socialization is the leading cause of behavioral problems that are unsafe enough to warrant euthanasia.
-------------
All animals should be altered as soon as it is safe to do so and before they enter a home.
2007-10-29 12:24:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
9⤊
6⤋
Yep. Animals AND people.
2007-10-30 09:21:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jessica 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Would you want permision to breed. lets say $100.00 per each time.
Or would you want to what comes naturally , with God's permition and not some man acting as God.
PETA claims they don't kill anamals.
As for myself I don't have the desire to have sex with anamals other than my wife.
If the breaders are doing this for money , obviously there is a demand for these anamals.
I have land out in the country and people dump their dogs and cats out all the time (the coyotes love eating them) these dogs and cats have no clue how to live off the land in the wild. Just as if a small kid was dumped or lost out in the country away from anyone else, no recognizable food or sheltor, strange anamals around without your best interest in mind.
The farmers and ranchers raise and bread their anamals at a controlled pace . The pitbull breeders are after a quick profit and seek that psuado macho thing without regard to who or what is right. and this attitude creates problems for everyone .
2007-10-29 12:15:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Robert F 7
·
3⤊
8⤋