View Full Version : Bill restricting breeding.



OKCCrime
11-07-2007, 07:24 AM
"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 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071027_1_A13_hProp01184)

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


OKCCrime

okclee
11-07-2007, 07:25 AM
This would be a great bill, I beleive that Okla is one of the last states to adopt such a bill, go figure.

Blangdon
11-07-2007, 11:08 AM
call your representative and senator and urge them to pass it.

OKCCrime
11-08-2007, 06:13 AM
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
11-08-2007, 06:25 AM
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 (http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/MemberListing.aspx) 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
11-08-2007, 06:50 AM
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
11-08-2007, 09:29 AM
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.

PennyQuilts
11-08-2007, 04:29 PM
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.:omg:

OKCCrime
11-09-2007, 06:36 AM
get over it.

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


people have different priorities

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

OKCCrime
11-09-2007, 06:40 AM
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
11-09-2007, 09:23 AM
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
11-09-2007, 09:53 AM
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.

PennyQuilts
11-09-2007, 04:56 PM
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
04-12-2008, 09:39 PM
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.........:tiphat:

bornhere
04-12-2008, 10:24 PM
You had your kids spayed and neutered?

kevinpate
04-13-2008, 04:13 AM
.oO(given the strays who tried to come around, I thought about it)Oo. 8^)

PennyQuilts
04-13-2008, 06:58 AM
I haven't neutered my kids but I also haven't euthanized by grandkids, either.

OKCCrime
04-13-2008, 09:33 AM
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 (http://www.okc.gov/budget/FY07_08/FY%2007-08%20Final%20Budget%20Book.pdf) (see page 223).

OKC will kill an estimated 18,000 animals (http://www.okhumane.org/articles_oklahoma_humane/article_0007.htm) 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.



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.
(http://www.okctalk.com/pets-forum/9061-spay-your-animals-3.html)

PennyQuilts
04-13-2008, 10:10 AM
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
04-13-2008, 11:19 AM
$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).



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.



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.



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.

PennyQuilts
04-13-2008, 12:17 PM
$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
04-14-2008, 10:23 AM
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.


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.



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 (http://www.srdogs.com/) 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.




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 (http://www.nokilldeclaration.org/). There is a really good chapter in "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" (http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Myth-Overpopulation-Revolution-America/dp/0979074304) 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 (http://www.okctalk.com/pets-forum/9061-spay-your-animals-2.html#post123307) still stands. Let me buy you a copy.

PennyQuilts
04-14-2008, 06:13 PM
<<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
04-14-2008, 06:53 PM
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
04-14-2008, 08:29 PM
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.

Redskin 70
04-15-2008, 02:25 AM
I don't want to subsidize through tax dollars those owners that can't or won't control their animals.:dizzy: :dizzy:


.

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.:tiphat:

good day.

PennyQuilts
04-15-2008, 04:37 AM
<<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.

PennyQuilts
04-15-2008, 04:40 AM
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
04-15-2008, 05:39 AM
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":numchucks

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
04-15-2008, 07:32 AM
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.



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
04-15-2008, 08:05 AM
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.



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.



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.





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
04-15-2008, 08:10 AM
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?

PennyQuilts
04-15-2008, 04:09 PM
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.

PennyQuilts
04-15-2008, 04:18 PM
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
04-15-2008, 07:43 PM
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. :tiphat:

OKCCrime
04-15-2008, 07:46 PM
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 (http://www.okctalk.com/rules.php). 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.



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.



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&#37; support). However, this is not the appropriate thread to debate that topic.



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.



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.



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
04-15-2008, 08:12 PM
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 (http://www.okhumane.org/articles_oklahoma_humane/article_0007.htm) 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."



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
04-15-2008, 09:00 PM
there are just to many irresponsible pet owners....


The American Veterinary Medical Association (http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp) 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 (http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=166) 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.



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.

PennyQuilts
04-16-2008, 04:57 AM
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
04-16-2008, 08:40 AM
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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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 (&#37;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.



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

Thank you.

Redskin 70
04-16-2008, 09:03 PM
The American Veterinary Medical Association (http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp) 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 (http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=166) 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 or the indiscriminate breeders there are just to many animals out there that are being put down. or you maintain the status quo. Now the status quo is not an option in my book.

Not everyone wants a dog or a cat or a gerbil for that matter. Heck some fools shouldn't have pet rocks.

You want to save all the animals that are alive and do nothing that will stop the problem in the first place. Some how I think we both are talking the same talk just not communicating it to one another.

So Let me start again.

I am a pet lover and I believe that all pets should be fixed to stop the stray problem.

The puppy mills,the back yard breeders and Walt Disney are equally responsible for this carnage and should be held equally culpable.

There now I have done it. I have attacked Walt Disney. Thats worse than cussing out Mom.:tiphat:

OKCCrime
04-16-2008, 10:07 PM
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!!!


I estimated 319,551 pets in Oklahoma City. Statistics indicated 28,000 were taken in at the OKC shelter. But as I said, yes we agree, 28,000 is too many.



And are you making a point that every household should take in a stray????? ... I truly don't get your point.


Without any evidence to back up the claim, you said:


7 thousand being adopted out..... at that level of adoption then the market becomes flooded


I don't believe that to be true. As evidence, I pointed out that we are at 14&#37; of the possible pet capacity in OKC. Nowhere near capacity.



you stop the puppy mills or the back yard breeders or the indiscriminate breeders there are just to many animals out there that are being put down. or you maintain the status quo. Now the status quo is not an option in my book. .... Some how I think we both are talking the same talk just not communicating it to one another.


On these points we agree.



I am a pet lover


Thank you for your compassion. We need more pet lovers in this world - 43% more household in fact.



I believe that all pets should be fixed to stop the stray problem.
The puppy mills,the back yard breeders and Walt Disney are equally responsible for this carnage and should be held equally culpable.


I agree that we need to spay/neuter pets to limit the number of animals killed at the shelter each year. However I disagree with you when you claim that failure to spay neuter and breeding for profit are equally responsible for the, as you put it, carnage. I believe that the indiscriminate breeding of animals is the major underlying causal factor. That is why I think it is important that we support legislation like that which I posted when I started this thread.

PennyQuilts
04-17-2008, 06:41 AM
There is a different motivation going on with backyard yahoos and commercial breeders, each calling for a different solution. Backyard yahoos are going to continue to overbreed and not properly care for their dogs until they have a change of attitude, until they "get" that what they are doing is leading to horrific misery for animals. Primarily, this is an education piece. Many of them the yahoos (and I was one, once so don't get too offended) think that the value of educating their child to the wonders of litterdom makes it worth it. Some DO supplement their income by selling a litter or two a year at the curb. For some yahoos, an extra 1000 a year is a lot, particularly if they sell before they shell out money for shots. Makes me cringe to think of it at this point in my life. When my kids were growing up, I did this. Yes, I admit it. Used the 1000 to pay for school books. If I had to do it, again, I would do something different. You can educate a yahoo.

As for the commercial breeders, the education piece kicks in to discourage buyers. But it is a lot easier to pass legislation with teeth in it to cut down on the wholesale mills. In a sense, that is a lot easier than changing the hearts and minds of yahoos. But it isn't easy. The problem with legislation is that is tends to overlap into legitimate small breeders that are actually doing a good job.

OKCCrime
04-17-2008, 09:04 AM
Primarily, this is an education piece. Many of them the yahoos (and I was one, once so don't get too offended) think that the value of educating their child to the wonders of litterdom makes it worth it. Some DO supplement their income by selling a litter or two a year at the curb. For some yahoos, an extra 1000 a year is a lot, particularly if they sell before they shell out money for shots. Makes me cringe to think of it at this point in my life. When my kids were growing up, I did this. Yes, I admit it. Used the 1000 to pay for school books. If I had to do it, again, I would do something different. You can educate a yahoo.


Thanks for sharing your story. I think you have a valuable insight into the problem. Now if we wanted to do something to educate the 'yahoos', what in your opinion, would be the best strategy?



As for the commercial breeders, the education piece kicks in to discourage buyers.

I have to admit, even as a pet owner, I've seen very little educational material aimed at discouraging 'yahoos' from breeding or aimed at discouraging those who buy from breeders. It would be easy for me to create a website with such information, but how would we get these audiences to view it? Or would another means be more effective?

I would like to do something to help educate people about this problem in general. Everyone I tell about the 18,000 pets killed per year at the shelter is shocked. They just didn't realize. How do we get 'onto the public's radar' with this issue? For example, talking about it on this forum only really gets seen by pet owners. We would really like to target, for example, people just considering getting a pet.

Redskin 70
04-17-2008, 07:29 PM
OKCC...........for some one that post so eloquently I cant belive this fight is going on when it is obvious the three of us agree.................

So I quit..................your smatter than I am.............More compassionate....................Less obtuse........................than this ole Okie.
:tiphat:

OKCCrime
04-18-2008, 10:06 AM
OKCC...........for some one that post so eloquently I cant belive this fight is going on when it is obvious the three of us agree.................

We agree on the ends but not the means.



So I quit..................

For the sake of the animals, please don't quit.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing — Edmund Burke