Bill restricting breeding.

[OKCCrime]

"Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing, is one of the lawmakers who is calling for state regulations for Oklahoma’s commercial breeders. "

Tulsa World: Breeders have bone to pick with bill

This is promising. Any Ideas about what we can do to support the passage of this legislation?


OKCCrime

[okclee]

This would be a great bill, I beleive that Okla is one of the last states to adopt such a bill, go figure.

[Blangdon]

call your representative and senator and urge them to pass it.

[OKCCrime]

I'll politely submit to you that calling my representative about this issue wont do squat to help this bill get passed.

My call wouldn't even get out of the noise. Other issues take priority in most people's, include legislator's, minds. Healthcare, terrorism, taxes, economic development, violent crime, drug trafficking, public schools, space industy, urban development, housing market, are just some of the topics that are actually being discussed in the state legislature.

Breeding and strays just aren't topics that people really care about. Consider this comparison. The thread "A chance to help stop puppy mills" (10/18) received only 307 views. A more recent thread "Oklahoma Laws v. 3.2: The Liquor Law" (10/27) already has 2638 views.

Do a multiple article exposition in a Tulsa newspaper on Oklahoma puppy mills (second worse problem in the nation), and the only people who pay attention are the animal advocates who already knew this was a serious problem.

BUT

Keep people from getting 6% beer or a bottle of wine in the grocery store, and EVERYONE is up in arms.

Now if I could do something to get 1000 people to call one particular representative, that might work. Any ideas how to get that to happen?

[betts]

I would suspect the Humane Society or perhaps Free to Live is working on this. This type of thing needs a lot of volunteers, and they've got them. You could contact them. However, I once had a pretty minor issue, but I was really angry about it. I wrote every state legislator. It's pretty easy to do, as their e-mail addressses are on this page: Oklahoma State House of Representatives - House Membership I just wrote one letter, and sent it to everyone. I got an amazing number of replies, many directly from the legislator. I think personally written letters rather than a form letter work best. As far as the views for this thread, if you look at the 3.2 beer thread, it's been around for months and months. That's why it has so many views, not only because of the subject.

[OKCCrime]

Ok, you're right. Another example then:

The thread, "The NBA in OKC" has 1300 views and it was started 11/03/07.

Get a chance to see a second hand professional sports team, play in my city. I gotta hear about that! Puppies ignored in cages, nope, not interested. ARG.

[MadMonk]

Breeding and strays just aren't topics that people really care about.

I understand your passion about the subject, but people have different priorities...do what you can and get over it.

[East Coast Okie]

You have to consider who is reading these posts. I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't even check the pet forum. That doesn't mean that most people, even those who aren't big-time pet people, would oppose something that would keep puppies from being mistreated. But it isn't on the front burner for a lot of people. Beer, on the other hand, appeals to a broader range. That Oklahoma sells 3.2 and so many other states allow stronger beer in grocery stores strikes a lot of people as arbitrary and unfair.

As for me, the pet topic is more interesting but that is just me.

Suggestion - if you want to get a lot of attention, put "Bill restricting breeding" in the singles forum.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by MadMonk

get over it.

Animal cruelty, get over it? I'll pretend you didn't say that.

Originally Posted by MadMonk

people have different priorities

That was exactly my point. People's priorities are screwed up.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Suggestion - if you want to get a lot of attention, put "Bill restricting breeding" in the singles forum

Good one! Maybe we can get this thread moderated over.

Okccrime

[sweetdaisy]

Thanks for posting about this, OKCCrime. Discussions about this bill is what my "...stop puppy mills" thread was referring to. It is so unfortunate that animal welfare is at the bottom of most people's list of concerns, but fortunately more people are being educated every day.

If people realized the importance of responsible pet ownership and spay/neuter and limiting backyard breeders/puppy mills, it would reduce the amount of city money that has to be spent on animal welfare housing/euthanasia/employees, and that money could be directed elsewhere...perhaps to programs they are more interested in.

Please don't count on just the people actively involved in Animal Welfare to push this thing through, though. What's needed is everyday people who are NOT involved in some sort of animal rescue to talk about this and demand change. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of "kooky animal people" trying to get the government to take them seriously...not an easy task.

East Coast Okie, you made me laugh with your comment!

[MadMonk]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

Animal cruelty, get over it? I'll pretend you didn't say that.

You don't have to pretend, because that's not what I stated. Thank you for misconstruing my post. To be clear, I was saying for you to get over the fact that not everyone is as passionate about this topic as you are and to stop throwing a whiney little hissy-fit because some other topic is more popular that yours.

[East Coast Okie]

Originally Posted by MadMonk

stop throwing a whiney little hissy-fit because some other topic is more popular that yours.

Hey, hey, HEY! We're talking puppies here.

[Redskin 70]

Interesting that people want animal control but refuse to control their animals.
Have you ever stopped to consider the cost to us tax payers just for animal control
THe cost of the employees, the shelter cost, the equipment cost.
It is staggering and yet we blithely allow anyone to own any animal with no thought to the long term consequence.

All of my animals have bee fixed. Always have been. No stray or unexpected litters here.

Hells bells we control our kids better than our daqgs.........

[bornhere]

You had your kids spayed and neutered?

[kevinpate]

.oO(given the strays who tried to come around, I thought about it)Oo. 8^)

[East Coast Okie]

I haven't neutered my kids but I also haven't euthanized by grandkids, either.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

Have you ever stopped to consider the cost to us tax payers just for animal control
THe cost of the employees, the shelter cost, the equipment cost.

For OKC, it is $3.1M in the 2007-2008 budget (see page 223).

OKC will kill an estimated 18,000 animals in this fiscal year. Do the math. we're paying around $170 per animal killed. You would think for that much money we could rescue more animals.

Originally Posted by Redskin 70

It is staggering and yet we blithely allow anyone to own any animal with no thought to the long term consequence.

The OKC animal shelter's target animal intake for this fiscal year is 53 animals per 1000 residents. That suggests that at most 5% of the residents, as you put it "refuse to control their animals".

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.

see this thread for more on this point.

[East Coast Okie]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

Do the math. we're paying around $170 per animal killed. You would think for that much money we could rescue more animals.]

$170.00 is nothing. Before you can "rescue" an animal, most need to be observed to see if their temperament allows them to be adoptable. Moreover, many animals come into care with significant health problems and that doesn't take into account that the ones who are intact need to be neutered. Even many no kill shelters routinely kill non adoptable animals.

Some purebred animals have waiting lists to foster them (samoyeds, greyhounds come to mind). The rescuers for specificc breeds are quite active - they comb the shelters to make sure none of their special interest breed end up abused or abandoned, communicate via the internet and do the leg work to find loving homes. Their advocates will contribute funds to assist in rescues, fortunately. The costs of rescuing each animal may well run into the 100's of dollars.

Sadly, a lot of sweet mutts are overlooked because they don't have strong advocates. Should the special interests abandon their breed to help the mutts? I'd say, no, unless that is where their hearts lead them. The whole reason many of them become involved is because that particular interest in a breed brings them into contact with persons with passion and connections to dog rescue groups. It is a marvelous recruiting tool to find homes and a safety net for dogs. Those people are the most insistent that dogs not intended to advance the breed should NOT be bred and, on the whole, are leading the charge to be responsible dog owners.

I have wonderful, purebred dogs that stop traffic because they are so lovely. No way would I breed them - one has a genetic disposition towards an eye condition (she was bred by the backyard breeder who violated her contract with a reputable breeder by allowing the dog to breed). The other is perfectly healthy but not show quality. I'll leave it to the show quality dogs to reproduce. My old dog that died last December was the result of another backyard breeder who was thinking that puppies are cute instead of puppies are a moral obligation and unhealthy ones should not be allowed to reproduce. Poor thing was so crippled up. The pain medication, alone, was over $60.00 a month. Add in heartword medication, treatment to avoid fleas and ticks, food, neutering, and in no time flat you'd exceed $170.00 - and that is just to maintain a dog. Nothing would be left to recruit owners, advertise, etc.

The "mutts" who end up at the shelter may not always result from a yahoo back yard breeders but the mass breeders are just as irresponsible - perhaps more so. It is disgraceful. Both allow their dogs to breed without regard for health problems and what will become of the puppies two and three generations down the road. By breeding haphazardly, they increase the likelihood of genetic deficiencies causing the dogs to frequently be sick and/or crippled.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

$170.00 is nothing. Before you can "rescue" an animal, most need to be observed to see if their temperament allows them to be adoptable. Moreover, many animals come into care with significant health problems and that doesn't take into account that the ones who are intact need to be neutered.

$170 is a small portion of the cost to rescue an animal. HOWEVER, $170 is outlandishly high to kill an animal. I certainly hope that the OKC shelter isn't wasting taxpayer money on veterinary expenses (e.g., medicine, vaccinations, spay, neuter) for animals that they turn around and kill (in mass quantities).

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

The costs of rescuing each animal may well run into the 100's of dollars.

No doubt. But that is not the cost at issue. Ethically, the relevant cost is, how much do we pay out to an organization in spite of the number of animals killed each year. Those number are $3.1M for 18,000 animals killed each year. The cost is too high.

This is an especially troubling cost when, with a sea-change of policy and practice at the OKC shelter and the same budget, we could have a no kill shelter.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Even many no kill shelters routinely kill non adoptable animals.

The number of truly non-adoptable animals is quite low and only makes up a small portion of the animals killed at the OKC shelter.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

The "mutts" who end up at the shelter may not always result from a yahoo back yard breeders but the mass breeders are just as irresponsible - perhaps more so. It is disgraceful. Both allow their dogs to breed without regard for health problems and what will become of the puppies two and three generations down the road. By breeding haphazardly, they increase the likelihood of genetic deficiencies causing the dogs to frequently be sick and/or crippled.

Yes, let's ban backyard and mass breeders both.

[East Coast Okie]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime

$170 is a small portion of the cost to rescue The number of truly non-adoptable animals is quite low and only makes up a small portion of the animals killed at the OKC shelter.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers but we have a nonkill shelter in my area and it costs a bloody fortune just to hold them for two weeks to give the owners a chance to claim them - add to that the time needed to determine if they are adoptable. As for the claim that only a small portion are truly non-adoptable animals - again, I am not sure where you get those numbers. In most places, non-adoptable means - too old (age 5 or 6), too sick (requiring a vet, even if it is something minor and fixable), too irratic (how can you tell if the dog is just freaked out?). The number of nonadoptable pets is HUGE.

Our nonkill shelter boasts that it doesn't kill any adoptable pets. That doesn't mean much for many animals. I've stood there and heard them explain to would-be dog dumpers that, "No, we don't take them to the vet - if they are sick, they will just die or be euthanized - they can't be adopted and they will not be treated." The staff shrugs and explains that so many people with a sick dog will just dump it off at the pound, assuming that it is like an emergency room that has to care for sick animals.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers

If you notice in my previous posts, I have been embedding links to publications from the city and the Oklahoma Human Society that provide the numbers that I have used.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

we have a nonkill shelter in my area and it costs a bloody fortune just to hold them for two weeks to give the owners a chance to claim them

As I said, a sea-change of policy and practice is needed to make it work. For example, the two week owner reclaim holding period that you mention is ridiculous (it is 3 days at the OKC shelter, I believe). I suggest eliminating the owner reclaim time. If you are an owner that lets your pet out of your direct control (as required by law), intentionally or not, you shouldn't automatically have the right to reclaim your pet. All pets that come to the shelter should be immediately adoptable. This policy would have two effects. First, animals would tend to stay in shelter care for less time (because many of those nice pure-breed animals that owners let run loose would immediately get adopted) and thus the shelter would incur less expense for housing. Second, it would motivate pet owners to keep their pets under better control, else face losing their pet to adoption by another owner. If you think this policy would be Draconian, then a reasonable alternative would be to keep a short holding period, but shift all of the costs of the holding period (for all animals whether ultimately recouped by the owner or not) onto those owners that want their pets back. Otherwise the holding period is a financially untenable policy. 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 East Coast Okie

As for the claim that only a small portion are truly non-adoptable animals - again, I am not sure where you get those numbers. In most places, non-adoptable means - too old (age 5 or 6), too sick (requiring a vet, even if it is something minor and fixable), too irratic (how can you tell if the dog is just freaked out?). The number of nonadoptable pets is HUGE.

Don't take this wrong, I don't know your position on this issue. I'll try and put this politely as possible. Anyone who believes that an old, sick or irratic animal is not adoptable is not an animal advocate, period.

Older animals make excellent pets for individuals with less active lifestyles. Older animals tend to be more behaviorally stable. Older animals tend to already be trained and socialized. Older animals are less of a long-term commitment. I suggest looking at the Senior Dogs Project for more reasons to adopt older animals.

Sick animals are just that, sick. With some effort and expense, most shelter animals can recuperate. Even those animals with more serious illnesses or chronic diseases can achieve a duration and quality of life that is worth pursuing. It is abominable to not consider adopting out sick animals to appropriate (caring and capable) owners. Such a position is ethically backwards. Consider an analogy with our soldiers returning from Iraq. The public would be outraged if we set aside the most seriously wounded soldiers until all the soldiers with minor injuries were seen by doctors! The most seriously wounded soldiers deserve the most attention. The most seriously sick animals also deserve the most attention!

Determining the temperament of an animal can be difficult. I completely understand how animal shelters might easily set a very high behavioral threshold for deciding which animals they choose to adopt out. An animal that barks, growls, hisses or nips, might be a danger. However, the easy thing to do is not necessarily the ethical thing to do. Many of these animals are reacting to the brutal environment of the shelter full of strangers. These reactions are genetically programmed into the animal for survival purposes. There is nothing wrong with these animals. Just because you can't easily differentiate these normal animals from those that have been adversely affected by abusive or violent experiences in their past which makes them a real danger, doesn't make it ethical to keep them from being adopted. Once outside of the shelter environment in a caring home, many of these animals will adjust well. Some may need additional training in order to help them learn which behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate under certain circumstances. The small minority that don't respond to training can still live very enjoyable lives if their owners are willing to engage in a management program.

Originally Posted by East Coast Okie

Our nonkill shelter boasts that it doesn't kill any adoptable pets. That doesn't mean much for many animals.

It's hard to criticize well-intentioned individuals that run these private shelters because they are helping animals in need. However, the problem is that they have adopted this abusive use of the term "unadoptable" so that they can save themselves the ethical dilemma of killing some animals to save others. But they are as responsible for the death of the animals that they turn away, as those individuals who actually kill the animals at the city animal control shelter.

This type of shelter is technically a no-kill shelter but isn't in the spirit of the No Kill Movement. There is a really good chapter in "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" called "Co-option" where the author describes the way in which many shelters have become "limited admission" no-kill shelters by employing the euphemism "unadoptable". My offer to buy any OKC user a copy of this book still stands. Let me buy you a copy.

[East Coast Okie]

<<Don't take this wrong, I don't know your position on this issue. I'll try and put this politely as possible. Anyone who believes that an old, sick or irratic animal is not adoptable is not an animal advocate, period.>>

This is not about being polite. You sound like this is a choice and that your personal philosophy is the correct one. What I described was the policy set by my county. It would be WONDERFUL if an individual or an organization with the means and ability could take in these dogs and find JUST THE RIGHT HOME for them. Unfortunately, what usually ends up happening is one of those loony hoarders takes a stab at it and ends up doing an injustice to everyone. It is fine to think that your own standards (and certainly I feel the same way) should prevail. I personally find it HORRID that a 6 year old would be put down rather than deemed adoptable, but then reality hits, unfortunately. There are so many puppies available and people in off the street want something cute and cuddly that they can make over in their own image. With so many puppies available, the "old" dogs get shuffled aside. Odds are, the puppies will be adopted before an old dog. So the old dog is deemed adoptable. It is a lot like children - healthy babies are easy to find homes for - older, disabled, abused kids not so much. Comes down to resources. You only have so much. You are complaining about spending $170.00 per dog. To hang on to dogs difficult to adopt would cost tons more.

[CuatrodeMayo]

It would be cheaper for the city to have a bounty on stray dogs. They pay $20 per head. Wwaaayyy cheaper then $170.

Cats would only be $2 per head because hey...everybody love killing cats.

[OKCCrime]

Originally Posted by CuatrodeMayo

It would be cheaper for the city to have a bounty on stray dogs. They pay $20 per head. Wwaaayyy cheaper then $170.

Cats would only be $2 per head because hey...everybody love killing cats.

I hope you would have been able to tell from the tenor of the discussion in this thread that no one here will find your joke funny, just offensive.