Sterilization/Tethering Law Passed

I honestly don't know how you make people care, making it harder for them to obtain the dogs in the first place is probably the start though. And making it harder for them to get them back if they are picked up.

As for the breeder, any reputable breeder will step up and pay to have it shipped back, or try and find it an approved home in the area. The breeder of my male Shiba had to fight an SPCA that one if her shelties was dumped at, he was 12-13 years old, they didn't want to send him back to her because she was 'out if the adoption area', that is total BS. She had to have her son go to the SPCA and adopt the dog and bring him to her.

And if the fee to not ship the dog back is more then the cost of the shipping I bet even crappy breeders would do it. And maybe they will re think breeding that next litter if it happens a few times.

and by making it harder on them, it makes it harder on the me. I don't want it harder on me. I take just fine care of my dogs. I don't need another hoop to jump thru, especially one I don't think is going to do jack squat. All puppy millers will do is not register themselves as a breeder. They switch registries, the mom and pop accidental litters aren't going to suddenly jump up and take on the responsibility for 10 puppies for the next 15 years.

and personally, I don't want a breeder to have anything to do with me once I get a dog. It's mine, not yours. I think it's ridiculous to expect a breeder to be responsible for a dog for it's entire life, though it only spends 8 weeks with you. I've heard all the arguments for it, but really???? all sorts of things happen to dogs once they leave the breeders, bad things happen in good homes, bad people fool good breeders into thinking they're something they're not, medical things happen, accidents happen, dogs get loose, people die, etc. a breeder shouldn't be responsible for anything once the dog leaves and is now somebody else's property.



Then ones that care already do, the ones that don't, won't. So now you'll have more litters passed around without registry, what are you going to do, arrest people for not having chipped dogs? Please, we have bigger problems in society. They place half a litter, then dump the rest. No chips, nobody to blame. Problem solved

I don't think the chip thing should be limited to people registered as breeders, I think any one who produces a litter should be held responsible.

Any breeder I have talked with WANT to be responsible for their puppies, for life.

Tethering law aside, as I said I do not agree with it, like any tool it can be used safely and not cause any problems for the dogs. As long as one is following the laws it shouldn't affect them, really. Just like speed limit, if you drive within them it doesn't matter where a cop has a radar trap.

That's fine if a breeder chooses to think they are responsible for every puppy they produce for the entirety of their lives. That's their choice. I think it's ridiculous to expect it though. Once you start legislating that much responsibility and liability to breeders down the road, there are probably other things breeders will start demanding from buyers too.

I'm not that big on hand holding at this point. When I get a dog, it's mine. if I can't care for a dog, I'll find a place for it. I don't want a breeder telling me how I need to vet, how I need to feed, how I need to exercise, how I need to train, how often I need to let them sleep, what kind of surface or anything else. I'm all for responsibility, my own.

Some breeders are bad enough with what they think they can control at this point, just wait till it's legislated and how much they'll feel they need to control then and feel more empowered to do it.

and regardless, just how do you think they're going to get anybody that breeds a litter of dogs to register them? For the money that would cost to implement and enforce they could just build giant dog runs and staff them for abandoned dogs.

+1 and :rofl1: yes

Meh it's not my job to decide how to do it, just said I liked the idea of it.

And that's the rub... you can't.

You're never going to legislate all of the badness in the world away. There's a balance to be struck between trying to do so and not unduly burdening the people who already DO care with unintended consequences.

I know exactly who bred Gimmick, and I would not be happy to have their info on his chip at all, much less listed before my own. The point of a chip is to get him home, and his home is not with her.

My idea is that the owner would be contacted first, but if they refused to look after the dog, or had surrendered it themselves, that is when the breeder's info would be called into play.

So in his case unless you said you didn't want him, it would be no risk that he would go back to his breeder.

The description of what I would have done to those kids, had I been Donny, would put me in prison. How horrifying!

I asked why he didn't kill them and he said it's because he only had a split second to decide if he was going to go after Zobby or the kids--they went in different directions.

I just came across this on Facebook, this at the Hillsborough County Animal Services where I used to live.


219 dogs listed adoptable on their website.

There is one litter of puppies (which constitutes one dog) and like.. seven 3-4 month old puppies, unrelated. I just don't see where the 210 other dogs came from irresponsible breeding. They are mostly just strays that people don't care to spend the money to 'spring them' from the shelter.

Since they felt such a law was necessary, it makes me angry it couldn't have been better planned out to target those who NEEDED to be governed. But that's the way these things usually work so why would this be any different?