How to stop the tragedy?

I'm not sure that all shelters have a clue about what dogs they have. Look at the ones killing all pits as vicious. If they held the dogs long enough, they would develop a sense about each dog, but are you going to turn down all adopters for at least a week? Puppies? Mixed breed puppies even?

Rescues seem to be better, but around here at least, municipal shelters are only funded enough to be open for 3 days a week, are they funded well enough to make sure their workers are knowledgeable about every breed that comes in the door? Is the shelter relying on that next adoption fee to stay open?

I'm not saying that people should not be responsible for their own choices, but could many of these returns be avoided if the shelter mentioned how that dog might not be best for that adopter? Who would send 3 young labs home to an apartment? Why not warn adopters that beagles are often somewhat difficult to house train and equip them with a few handouts on housetraining and a number to call a trainer?

Or the shelters that have numerous pits listed as "lab mixes" or "shepherd mixes". Which helps nobody.

I was discussing a similar issue with my friend who runs a rescue recently, and the idea we came up with is that when people ask for an application for a certain dog, they will also get a letter explaining that breeds were developed for certain traits, and that although all dogs are individuals, owners should look at the common traits for the breed. i.e. hounds aren't usually good off-leash, but are generally friendly; herding dogs may nip and need lots of exercise; etc. I think as long as it is presented as informative, and not as if the rescue is trying to drive off adopters, it can only help.

Another idea that popped into my head is to offer discounted licenses for obedience classes. Say a license is $20; you get a form to have signed by the school saying you have completed a beginner class, and you get the fee reduced to $5. Yes, there are a lot of people who would just rather pay the extra money, but it would reward owners who took the time to work with the dog.

Actually, the breeder I got my Shibas from does something very similar when selling her pet puppies, and it's been wildly successful. After the puppy completes a puppy kindergarten course (under an instructer she deems appropriate), she'll refund the owners somewhere in the range of $50 to $100 off of the purchase price of the pup. I would say that the vast majority of people who have bought pet pups from her have chosen to take the class. The refund is a lovely incentive, but even better they end up having a well-adjusted puppy that behaves.

I think ideas like this are a step in the right direction. Sometimes that little incentive is enough to get people off their butts, and once they're into it they realize how great it is.

The best idea is to cut back on BYB's and puppy mills and John Q Public who didnt get his mutt fixed and she ends up being bred.

I think education is the best way to go, although I am sure like everyone else's city, our city has a very tight budget and they would rather spend it on something other than Animal education. Although if they did in a couple years I think the numbers of euthanized animals would dramatically decrease.

Here is a good article about how Albequerkie (sp? Know I spelled that wrong) has cut back on it's pet over population, I am not sure where she got this article from but I am betting I could find the site if need be:



"Cracking Down on Pet Owners
Albuquerque and a growing number of cities are passing tough new measures aimed at ending euthanasia in animal shelters. Owners are even being forced to clean up after their dog in their own backyard By NANCY HARBERT/ALBUQUERQUE SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Tuesday, Jan. 02, 2007 For the past two years, Martin Chavez, mayor of Albuquerque, has brought his best friend to work every day. His friend doesn't talk, but he's often the first to shake visitors' hands. Dukes, Chavez's two-year-old floppy-eared mutt, is around not just for the company, but as a way to bring attention to the mayor's commitment to reduce the city's exploding unwanted animal population.

When he was re-elected to a third term in 2005, Chavez made a promise to end euthanasia at the city's animal shelters. He had already been meeting daily with City Councilor Sally Mayer and regularly with breeders and groomers across the city to come up with an animal ordinance that would improve the way the city treats its dogs and cats and increase the number of adoptions. At the time, the city was euthanizing more than 1,000 pets a month.

The law went into effect in October and it follows a nationwide trend of get-tough approaches to pet overpopulation. In Albuquerque, all cats and dogs older than six months must be microchipped and sterilized, unless owners pay an annual fee of $150 to keep their dogs able to reproduce — and another $150 for every new litter. Dogs can be restrained by a chain for only one hour every day, and people who want to have more than four dogs must obtain an additional permit. There is even a provision in the new law that requires dog owners to clean up after their pets in their own yards every week. While authorities won't be checking backyards for hardened poop, Chavez says that additional animal control officers have been hired, to make sure any animals they pick up have been neutered or spayed.

Lisa Peterson, a spokesperson for the American Kennel Club, considers the Albuquerque ordinance draconian, but acknowledges it is part of a nationwide trend. Ordinances similar to Albuquerque's have been passed or are being considered by 138 local communities, along with many states. She is concerned that the new laws punish responsible pet owners and breeders, and could even jeopardize the existence of some breeds. In Denver, for example, pitbulls are outlawed completely. This has forced owners to flee the city or go underground, where they keep their dogs behind closed shades and take them out only under the cloak of darkness. In 2006 alone, more than 800 of the dogs known for their ferocity have been rounded up in Denver, most of them destroyed.

Often, these laws follow vicious, sometimes deadly, dog attacks and are driven by a concern for public safety. They are also a response to overwhelming numbers of feral cats and puppy litters and reflect a desire to provide them more humane conditions. In Albuquerque, for example, 30,000 animals are brought to the city's two shelters every year. And that doesn't include animals that pass through private shelters and rescue networks.

It's a grassroots phenomenon, says David Favre, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law, who has studied animal rights laws for 20 years. Feral cats, spaying and neutering, local shelters — these are all local problems that don't get the ear of folks at the federal and state levels. "It is not unlike the environmental movement when I was in law school. Animal welfare is a growing social interest."

It's too soon to tell how effective these laws will be. "We're in the experimentation phase," Favre says. "We're taking the American approach of trying a hundred different things and then seeing what works best in 10 years." The Denver ordinance has survived court challenge, but earlier this year a Toledo, Ohio, ordinance that allowed only one pitbull per household was struck down by an appellate court, which said the law was unreasonable and discriminatory.

To bring even more attention to the issue in Albuquerque, Mayor Chavez now brings a selection of shelter pets to news conferences, department meetings and public appearances. In most cases, the pets find new homes on the spot. The city's euthanasia rate has been cut in half, and Albuquerque is now adopting out more pets than it kills. Chavez's long-term goal: to be able to brag that Albuquerque is a city where all animals that are suited for adoption find homes. "We can't be a complete city as long as we euthanize animals," he says."

That's actually kind of a neat idea.. the requiring the fee to keep your animal intact.
Here in Ottawa, all animals to leave the Ottawa Humane Society are microchipped and fixed. Same in the Gatineau SPCA.
Here we have an interesting program where if an animal spends long enough in one shelter it is transferred to a new shelter to try to increase the odds it will be adopted.

When I adopted my first dog, I have to fill out a rather lengthy questionaire, provide information about my living conditions and how much I knew about the breed type I was adopting and had to have everybody I live with come in to meet the dog before I was allowed to bring her home.

This law is a DISASTER for responsible breeders and owners.

HEART is BAD FOR DOGS, and BAD FOR DOG OWNERS!!!

Now there is a proposal for a STATE WIDE mandatory spay neuter law in NM.

How many think THAT is a good idea????

:yikes:

I think one very big issue, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is the will-nilly nature of the rescue community. Every animal rescue professional and politician is hot to regulate pet owners, but I see nothing about standardizing requirements for shelters and rescues. This is a huge issue, though, since people who get turned down at a shelter which screens responsibly often just drive down the road to a shelter which doesn't screen at all. And I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but there's also the issue of dogs who should be put down, not adopted out. One major way of cutting down on the overpopulation problem is to stop the revolving door for dogs who are not going to find a forever home in this lifetime. Too many shelters like to screen human applicants with rigor while posting Petfinder ads that read like bad jokes: Kiko is a 130lb Akita/Dane mix who doesn't trust men; she's recovering from a bad case of mange, made more dificult to treat because she's afraid of being touched. She would really be best as an only pet, because she gets jealous easily.

I also think it is an excellent idea. If someone wants to breed an animal, let them show that they have some financial responsibility before they start having litters of potentially unwanted dogs.

Our shelter is required (by law) to sterilize the animal before it leaves the facility. Surprisingly it is a state law. (although the rest of our animal laws are crap)

Yes, I do think that show quality dogs should be excluded from the mandatory spay/neuter, but I like to believe most responsible breeders would willingly pay to make sure their breed isnt being bought & bred by BYB and puppy mills. I guess it can get pretty expensive if you have a good sized kennel set up.

They euthanize about 50 animals a week here (usually more), something HAS to be done. The bad part is our lawmakers could care less. Our town only has a population of 250,000 people, and they euthanize that many adoptable animals a week. It is sick.

I wish our mayor cared enough to do this: "To bring even more attention to the issue in Albuquerque, Mayor Chavez now brings a selection of shelter pets to news conferences, department meetings and public appearances. In most cases, the pets find new homes on the spot."

I dont know what HEART is??

I understand why good breeders wouldnt like the proposal, but what do you do when so many animals are killed every week? You have to do something to stop it. Mandatory spay/neuter for non show quality pets is all I can think of. I wonder if it is $150 per unsterilized pet or $150 to have unsterilized animals.

They have already upped the liscense fee here. It is $10 if you have a sterilized pet and $40 if it is unsterilized. You would think that would cut back on breeding but if you think about it an irresponsible person isnt going to get their dog liscensed anyway.

That is awesome. I wish we could do that.