[Redskin 70]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

I don't want to subsidize through tax dollars those owners that can't or won't control their animals.


.

I believe that is exactly what my inference was in the first place. My point was all us tax payers across the nation who are subsidizing careless and irresponsible pet owners. I did say that didn't I?

Glad you came about to my thought process.

OKC CRIME???In other words, failure to spay/neuter and then allowing pets to reproduce is a relatively small part of the problem. The overabundance of animals bred for sale is really much more significant. If you restrict breeding, you will limit the number of animals that go to the shelter and thus save taxpayer dollars.

Yet in the other breath you say that indiscriminate breeding is NOT a problem

I don't understand your logic on this one. Is it an overabundance of breeding or is it just allowing a pet to reproduce.

SO I go back to my original premise that we want animal control we just don't want to control our animals? Is that right

There again, maybe way way to many people shouldn't be allowed to own a pet in the first place. Then you tax payers of Ok CIty would not have to pay $170 bucks per animal. Do the math nation wide, the cost is astronomical because of illiterate pet owners who don't control their animals.

Greedy pet owners who have bitchs spitting out litters for the slaughter mills.
Ignorant pet owners who decry govt regulation like this
"you can have my puppy when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" OK cheap shot
Charleton Heston, I apologize, it just seemed to fit.

good day.

[East Coast Okie]

<<Yet in the other breath you say that indiscriminate breeding is NOT a problem

I don't understand your logic on this one. Is it an overabundance of breeding or is it just allowing a pet to reproduce. >>

Whew. I thought it was just me. My brain was going back and forth on that particular post trying to figure out what was being said. I finally just gave up.

[East Coast Okie]

But let me add that I don't want to criticise because, really, the final word is that we all agree that too many dogs suffer and it costs too much and certain people/groups are irresponsible.

Apparently, we don't all agree on cats.

[Redskin 70]

Wow Im tired.
Let me state that I fully do support any effort to control the daqg breeders and puppy mills. That still goes back to my original......there are just to many irresponsible pet owners.

I also dont agree with the cat argument considering I have two, both currently "fixed"

I have to also agree about the concept concerning the older dawg. Its ashame we are forced as a society to supply to the "consumer" the current latest fashion dog for the kids to consume.

So what then happens to that older dalmatian which is no longer "popular"
Or, .......the older slower not so "fun" dawg.
They get wacked and I believe that was the point that east coast okie was stating. Simple reality,
Until you change the consumer mentality concerning the dogs and cats you will not be able to have a true "NO KILL" shelter.

SIgh we agree on so much yet are so far apart...................

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

You sound like this is a choice and that your personal philosophy is the correct one. ... It is fine to think that your own standards (and certainly I feel the same way) should prevail.

I don't subscribe to moral relativism. Ethics are absolute. The policies of the OKC shelter are unethical and should be changed.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I personally find it HORRID that a 6 year old would be put down rather than deemed adoptable, but then reality hits, unfortunately. ... Comes down to resources. You only have so much.

Our shelter like many others offers up the same utilitarian cost/benefit analysis as tender to justify it's actions. The argument is analogous to the following: We've got a train racing down a track and one healthy purebred puppy is tied in the path of the train. There is a track switch that will divert the train and save the puppy. However, diverting the train will kill five older infirm unadoptable mutts tied to the second set of tracks. The director of the OKC animal shelter would have us believe that we must pull the lever to save the puppy. Foremost in his mind is the thought that this healthy purebred puppy will be easy to adopt, whereas the older infirm mutts will never find a home and likely have to be put to death anyway. Would you pull the lever too?
You might say yes, pull the lever, like many other well intentioned people thinking about saving as many animals as possible.

The problem with the argument is that it fallaciously assumes that there has to be a train in the first place. All the animals can be saved. There is no train other than the one we artificially impose. Our resources as a city are not so limited that we couldn't save each and every animal that comes to the shelter. Just consider the amount the city will spend on renovating the Ford Center to attract an NBA team. Our choice to fund the NBA and not the animal shelter brings the train into existence that kills those animals. Even if we assume our hand is forced by evil politicians and we are stuck with limited resources, this fact does not dictate that we kill any of the animals. The shelter chooses to kill the animals instead of doing other less expensive things (e.g., refusing to take animals from owners who attempt to drop them off at the shelter). The mass killing of animals at the shelter is a choice, an unethical one, that is made for the convenience of people, not for the salvation of a few lucky animals (as some would have us believe).

It is a perverse logic that has so many of us thinking we must kill many to save a few.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

Most shelters have a trivial pet recovery fee that is required. It doesn't come close to covering the expense incurred by the shelter that has a holding period. Often the logic of such a low fee is that, sadly, many owners won't (can't) pay a higher fee (one that reflects the actual expense), but will instead, will leave the animal at the shelter. However, I would argue that such an owner should not have had a pet in the first place if they loss control of their animal and can't handle reasonable expenses. I don't want to subsidize through tax dollars those owners that can't or won't control their animals.

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

I believe that is exactly what my inference was in the first place. My point was all us tax payers across the nation who are subsidizing careless and irresponsible pet owners. I did say that didn't I? Glad you came about to my thought process.

We agree that some owners need to do a better job at controlling their animals. However, in your original post, you inferred that it is the failure of owners to spay/neuter and keep the animal from accidentally reproducing that is the causal factor in pet overpopulation. I don't believe that accidental reproduction is the reason why so many animals end up being killed at the shelter (at the taxpayers expense). I believe, and was arguing that, it is intentional breeding, whether by back-yard breeders or puppy mills that leads to the mass killing at the shelter.

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

Yet in the other breath you say that indiscriminate breeding is NOT a problem
I don't understand your logic on this one. Is it an overabundance of breeding or is it just allowing a pet to reproduce.

To clarify my previous post, please insert "accidentally" and "intentionally" so it reads:

In other words, failure to spay/neuter and then allowing pets to accidentally reproduce is a relatively small part of the problem. The overabundance of animals intentionally bred for sale is really much more significant. If you restrict breeding, you will limit the number of animals that go to the shelter and thus save taxpayer dollars.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

There again, maybe way way to many people shouldn't be allowed to own a pet in the first place. Then you tax payers of Ok CIty would not have to pay $170 bucks per animal. Do the math nation wide, the cost is astronomical because of illiterate pet owners who don't control their animals.

No, I don't agree. It is pet breeders who should be restricted from flooding the market with animals. Reproduction by intentional breeding far exceeds reproduction by accidental breeding.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

Until you change the consumer mentality concerning the dogs and cats you will not be able to have a true "NO KILL" shelter.

No. All it takes to have a no-kill shelter is for us to make the choice that we won't kill any more animals and that we will do something else instead. Mass killing isn't the only option, it isn't the least expensive option, it isn't the ethical option. Why do we keep doing it?

[East Coast Okie]

OKCCRIME, seriously, you need to get out your checkbook.

There is only a certain amount of money. When you start divying it up, services to children and old people, infrastructure, public safety, including police and stop signs, public education, I could go on and on.... the notion of saving all animals just doesn't come on the radar of a lot of people. Just where is this money tree?Do you have any idea how burdensome the the tax burden already is on people with families and those on fixed incomes? And this is coming from a true dog lover who would go back into a burning building to rescue my hounds.

And as for the Ford Center - you don't really understand about how business is attracted and encouraged (leading to higher taxes to spend), do you.

[East Coast Okie]

OKCCrime, let's try this. Why don't you, personally, go out and save all the animals? Isn't that the moral thing to do? What? You can't afford it? What makes you think the funds are unlimited, elsewhere? Oh, what? Shall we just raise taxes? Is that the answer?

[Redskin 70]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

No. All it takes to have a no-kill shelter is for us to make the choice that we won't kill any more animals and that we will do something else instead. Mass killing isn't the only option, it isn't the least expensive option, it isn't the ethical option. Why do we keep doing it?

No....what it takes is for us as a society to make a choice that we will stop the indiscriminate breeding.

Then we can achieve the goal of a no kill because there will be very few animals going to the pound in the first place.

The solution begins with the individual pet owner

When that pet owner realizes that it is better and more cost effective to have their animal fixed then other things will ultimately begin to happen......only then when we change the mentality of the pet owner that these living animals are just that and not a consumable item to be used up and discarded then and only then can we begin to close the shelters.................what about that concept is so hard to under stand.


By using your own numbers for the OKC animal shelter with over 25 thousand a YEAR going to the shelter and only 7 thousand being adopted out..... at that level of adoption then the market becomes flooded and no one else will adopt...........

2004-2005: 25,034 accepted, 15,554 euthanized

•2005-2006: 27,836 accepted, 14,979 euthanized

•2006-2007: 28,688 accepted, 19,365 euthanized

[url="http://newsok.com/article/3230098/1208234036"]
http://newsok.com/article/3230098/1208234036

Todays news paper the Oklahoman. The numbers are theirs sooooooo...

Then what......................? Do you think I am arguing for killing the animals.
Hell no I'm...... not......I'm arguing about the irresponsible pet owners who let their pets wander loose to be hit and killed, be picked up and or impregnated and if it makes you feel better to use the word ACCIDENTALLY than I will use that word but it is still an irresponsible act on the part of the pet owner that we the tax payers will ultimately pick up the tab for........

The carnage at doggie dachaeu can be stopped if the average pet owner will be responsible.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

OKCCRIME, seriously, you need to get out your checkbook.

And as for the Ford Center - you don't really understand about how business is attracted and encouraged (leading to higher taxes to spend), do you.

Why don't you, personally, go out and save all the animals? Isn't that the moral thing to do? What? You can't afford it?

Let me begin with saying that I don't appreciate your personal attacks. If you wish to engage in ad hominem arguments, please do so elsewhere. Such behavior is explicitly against the forum rules. If you want to to continue, let's please stick to discussing state policy on breeding (the topic of this thread), the humane treatment of animals, or ways we can decrease the number of animals killed at the OKC shelter.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

OKCCRIME, seriously, you need to get out your checkbook.

Since I've arrived in Oklahoma a short time ago, I rescued a number of dogs, personally adopted and trained a stray dog that the OKC animal shelter considers unadoptable, I tell everyone and everyone I can about the plight of animals at the OKC shelter, I give away copies of and offer to buy everyone and anyone copies of the book "Redemption" that I mentioned earlier in this thread.... Back off, my checkbook is open.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

And as for the Ford Center - you don't really understand about how business is attracted and encouraged (leading to higher taxes to spend), do you.

Whether the NBA moving to Oklahoma will be more of a boon or drain on the economy is a issue of debate (remember that the vote only received 62% support). However, this is not the appropriate thread to debate that topic.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

OKCCrime, let's try this. Why don't you, personally, go out and save all the animals? Isn't that the moral thing to do? What? You can't afford it?

Yes, I am financially limited. But I am able bodied. I spend my time helping animals where I can and trying to persuade people that policy change at the OKC shelter could solve this problem.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

There is only a certain amount of money. When you start divying it up, services to children and old people, infrastructure, public safety, including police and stop signs, public education, I could go on and on.... the notion of saving all animals just doesn't come on the radar of a lot of people.

That is why I think it is important to talk about these issues in a public forum. I don't think we kill so many animals at the shelter because people are evil. Rather, I believe that it is because this issue doesn't receive enough publicity. It's ugly and so gets swept under the rug, hidden from the light of day. Given a choice like, do we spend five million dollars to create a series of statues (the Landrun Monument) or do we use the funds to save the animals taken in at the city shelter from an unjust death, I have enough faith in the human race that I believe we would make the right choice.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Just where is this money tree? ... What makes you think the funds are unlimited, elsewhere? Oh, what? Shall we just raise taxes? Is that the answer?

We could raise taxes, but as I explained in my previous post, we don't need more money than the shelter already receives to turn our kill shelter into a no-kill shelter. My claim isn't unfounded. The author of Redemption, Nathan J. Winograd, took over the animal control directorship in Tompkins County, New York and turned that shelter with a budget deficit and a high kill rate into no-kill shelter with a budget surplus over a two-year period. In his book he outlines a plan of action that any shelter can adopt to go from kill to no kill. Please read this book.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

By using your own numbers for the OKC animal shelter with over 25 thousand a YEAR going to the shelter and only 7 thousand being adopted out.....

Just a point of clarification -- because many animals are recovered by their owners, fewer than 7 thousand were adopted out. The Central Oklahoma Human Society reports for 2007,
"the Oklahoma City Animal Shelter impounded more than 28,000 live animals ... Over 18,000 cats and dogs were euthanized. Only 4,407 were adopted."

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

I'm arguing about the irresponsible pet owners who let their pets wander loose to be hit and killed, be picked up and or impregnated and if it makes you feel better to use the word ACCIDENTALLY than I will use that word but it is still an irresponsible act on the part of the pet owner that we the tax payers will ultimately pick up the tab for........

I don't disagree with you that we are paying a price (in dollars) attributable to irresponsible pet owners who loose their pets.

However, I don't believe that it is the fact that some owners fail to spay/neuter their pets and then accidentally allow their pets to reproduce that leads to so many animals being killed at the shelter. Rather it is the intentional breeding of animals for profit that floods the market with unwanted animals. If we place legal limits on breeding, the price of bred animals will rise (because fewer will be bred), more people will adopt shelter animals, and there will be less killing at the shelter.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

there are just to many irresponsible pet owners....

The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 57% of US households own pets. Considering just dogs and cats (most pets are either dogs or cats), on average there are two pets per household. According to the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce there are 280,308 households in Oklahoma City. A rough estimate of the number of pets in the city is 319, 551 (0.57x2x280,308). Central Oklahoma Human Society reports for 2007 that approximately 28,000 pets were taken in at the shelter.
Thus, only 9% of the city's pets went to the shelter last year. I agree with you that is too many irresponsible owners, but it clearly isn't appropriate to characterize pets owners as irresponsible in general. In fact it is more appropriate to say that the vast majority of pet owners are responsible.

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

7 thousand being adopted out..... at that level of adoption then the market becomes flooded and no one else will adopt...........

Oklahoma city municipal code state that "No person shall harbor or keep dogs or cats totaling more than four of each over the age of six months in any household." Each household can have eight pets. The total number of pets the city can house is thus 2,242,464 (8x280,308). The city is at 14% capacity. We are no where near flooded with pets.

[East Coast Okie]

OKCCrime, you sound like you want to fix the problem by pronouncing it is wrong and making an abrupt policy change to impose upon the people. IMHO, it is naive to think that you can change practices without first changing minds and attitudes. You want credit for personally spending time and money but recognize your own financial limitations. Which is sensible. For some odd reason, you don't apply the same logic to governmental spending. I see that with a lot of idealistic people who plead poor (but want credit for having high minded intentions) who think the GOVERNMENT (i.e., their neighbors) has unlimited resouces to fund THEIR passion.

Your statistics are incredibly simplistic. You can't just run the math without taking into account variables such as housing size, individual zoning per neighborhood and other demographics.

I don't disagree that commercial breeders are a huge part of the problem and a good way to put a stop to that is to educate purchasers about what sort of horrors they are encouraging everytime they buy a pup from a petstore or an online vendor. Respectful education is the key, to my way of thinking. I have met quite a few people who buy a dog from the petstore with the high minded notion that they have "saved" the pup from a fate worse than death. They feel pretty good about themselves and the ones I've met have the best of intentions and have been nice people. They don't necessarily realize that while THIS pup may now have a good home, they have just encouraged the breeders to lock that pup's mama and other bitches in a crate, for life, lying in their own filth having litter, after litter, after litter until they are too old or too sick, at which time they are killed.

The difference between commercial breeders and the negligent public, to my way of thinking, is that the commercial breeders know exactly what conditions the dogs are living in. The buyers can be educated to help put a stop to the practice.

Frequently, however, the people who breed indiscriminately and whose pups and dogs end up at the shelter simply don't care or just don't get it. For them, having litters is fun and educational. Their dogs are just livestock. You can try to educate those yahoos but oftimes they just need to grow up and take a second look at what they are doing. I wish the cost of dropping off a litter at the pound would be that the owner has to euthanize them. Maybe seeing it happen might make it sink in. Too many of those people either sell their pups at the curb (to god knows who) or drop off a box of puppies. Every single one of them think that their pups are so cute that they will surely be adopted. I wish they'd post pictures of puppies playing in the box about 15 minutes before they are killed. Maybe that would get people's attention (hmm - on second thought, sounds a bit like the aborted fetus pictures and we all know that is off bounds as a way to get people to think).

My favorite (NOT) excuse is that (after taking on the responsibility for puppies) they announce sanctimoniously that they can't afford the animal or the cost of its care. For poor people, that seems to be the bottom line and after you cross it, you are no longer liable (heaven forbid you get a second job). Dead beat parents frequently have exactly - EXACTLY - the same attitude.

I will check out the book you suggested and let you know what I think.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

it is naive to think that you can change practices without first changing minds and attitudes. You want credit for personally spending time and money but recognize your own financial limitations. Which is sensible. For some odd reason, you don't apply the same logic to governmental spending. I see that with a lot of idealistic people who plead poor (but want credit for having high minded intentions) who think the GOVERNMENT (i.e., their neighbors) has unlimited resouces to fund THEIR passion.

Enough already with the personal attacks, thinly veiled as they are. I never asked for credit for my actions or expenses - you brought it up by way of a personal attack. More on issue, I repeatedly said we don't necessarily need more government money (i.e. tax dollars) to solve the problem. We need to change policy at the shelter.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Your statistics are incredibly simplistic. You can't just run the math without taking into account variables such as housing size, individual zoning per neighborhood and other demographics.

Ok, I'm game. Let's do take these into account and make a better estimate. How should housing size, zoning or demographics be included?

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I don't disagree that commercial breeders are a huge part of the problem and a good way to put a stop to that is to educate purchasers about what sort of horrors they are encouraging everytime they buy a pup from a petstore or an online vendor. Respectful education is the key, to my way of thinking.

Well put. We are of the same mind on this point.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I wish the cost of dropping off a litter at the pound would be that the owner has to euthanize them. Maybe seeing it happen might make it sink in.

Interesting policy suggestion. Not a bad idea but maybe a less drastic one would be just to require the individual who drops off a pet to return to watch in the case the animal is ultimately killed at the shelter. I'm not sure about the legality of someone who is not a veterinarian administering drugs.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I wish they'd post pictures of puppies playing in the box about 15 minutes before they are killed. Maybe that would get people's attention (hmm - on second thought, sounds a bit like the aborted fetus pictures and we all know that is off bounds as a way to get people to think).

I don't think this would work. For example, when the issue of animal deaths comes up in the news, people just turn away to avoid the personal pain.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

My favorite (NOT) excuse is that (after taking on the responsibility for puppies) they announce sanctimoniously that they can't afford the animal or the cost of its care. For poor people, that seems to be the bottom line and after you cross it, you are no longer liable (heaven forbid you get a second job). Dead beat parents frequently have exactly - EXACTLY - the same attitude.

Again, let me stress that I think it is a mistake to spend so much time and energy talking about the things a small number of pet owners are doing wrong. It discourages pet owners and pet ownership in general. We should be praising the fact that so many people (%57 of households) open up a place in their home for pets. As you elegantly said above, we need to educate pet owners, not criticize. If there is anyone we should openly criticize, it is breeders ... all breeders, but mass breeders in particular.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I will check out the book you suggested and let you know what I think.

Thank you.

[Redskin 70]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 57% of US households own pets. Considering just dogs and cats (most pets are either dogs or cats), on average there are two pets per household. According to the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce there are 280,308 households in Oklahoma City. A rough estimate of the number of pets in the city is 319, 551 (0.57x2x280,308). Central Oklahoma Human Society reports for 2007 that approximately 28,000 pets were taken in at the shelter.
Thus, only 9% of the city's pets went to the shelter last year. I agree with you that is too many irresponsible owners, but it clearly isn't appropriate to characterize pets owners as irresponsible in general. In fact it is more appropriate to say that the vast majority of pet owners are responsible.



Oklahoma city municipal code state that "No person shall harbor or keep dogs or cats totaling more than four of each over the age of six months in any household." Each household can have eight pets. The total number of pets the city can house is thus 2,242,464 (8x280,308). The city is at 14% capacity. We are no where near flooded with pets.

Still arguing a point just for the argument huh?????so By your tally there are 319, 551 pets in Oklahoma? And only 9 percent of those went to the pound???
That is still nearly 39,000 which is to many!!!
And are you making a point that every household should take in a stray????? Not hardly because back to my original premise....not every household that has a pet should have. What about that is so difficult to understand? I truly don't get your point. Either you stop the puppy mills or the back yard breeders o