Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Suggested Solutions to Rehoming

wolfcat
July 23rd, 2008, 07:29 PM
Wow! That rehoming thread got vicious, :sorry: no wonder it's closed.

In an effort to turn it to the positive, here is what i have sent local Toronto media in the hope they will delve into it:

ANIMAL OVERPOPULATION PROBLEMS IN TORONTO
Vicious cycle of re-homing pets overwhelming shelters

For research, some good grist and heartfelt quotes you can report: http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/pet/

Even a cursory search reveals anguish of animal advocates at the impossible situation being faced.

Both free online classifieds – www.toronto.en.craigslist.ca and www.toronto.kijiji.ca/ are presently being inundated with (free) ad to dispose of (spinword term used is “rehome”) pets, primarily cats. People are offering kittens and cats for free, no strings attached, sometimes giving reasons like ‘I have to move and they don’t take pets there’ or ‘I work all day and cant give my pet the attention it deserves’.

Humane and rescue shelters are overcrowded and cannot cope with the steady stream of unwanted and stray animals. Although they do a lot to try to place properly spayed/neutered/vaccinated animals in their care – how can they compete with free throwaway ads on the internet? None of these shelters get government funding and rely on scarce charitable dollars.

What could be the solutions?

*Spay/neuter clinic opening up in late 2008/early 2009 in Newmarket to charge low rates for spay/neuter (website: www.spaycentral.com/ ). Will even do pickup and delivery.

* Create city-wide program whereby all pets and strays must be spayed/neutered, funded by the City (it's a health issue too)

* Legislate that NO ANIMAL may be transferred ownership without a set minimum fee being paid (fees to go to shelters)... kinda like swiching a used car registration when you sell it

* Education campaign to remind people that a ‘no pets’ requirement for tenants is invalid (it’s in the Ontario TENANT Protection Act, which list very, very limited parameters for this)

If we are caretakers of the planet, surely we are caretakers of its inhabitants, including the animals :grouphug:

Anyone else have constructive ideas on how to reverse this disposal trend and help the animals? :shrug::pray::confused:

Dingo
July 23rd, 2008, 07:44 PM
I think your aims need some clarification. For example, off the top of my head:

1. Is this a Toronto-specific action, or something you'd like to see adopted Canada-wide?

2. Is the main issue cat and dog overpopulation, or is it more an issue of ownership of animals being too easily transferred?

3. Or is the issue more one of a lack of responsibility on the part of pet owners?

The reason I ask is because the solutions might be different in each case.


A few suggestions. It would be helpful to provide guidance to people in other places on how the rules in Toronto came about. In other cities, a majority of rental properties ban pets, and this is perfectly legal.

If the issue is pet overpopulation, then the solution is likely to be some combination of free and/or low-cost spay/neuter programs in areas where such services are most needed.

I don't know how you would go about getting anyone to agree to a fee being charged for transfer of ownership of pets. Potentially that could be a logistical nightmare.

In my view, the overpopulation problem could be addressed by preventing pet shops from selling cats and dogs unless they come from shelters, and by creating legislation governing commercial breeding of cats and dogs (not to limit responsible breeders, but to prevent people from being able to create puppy mills).

In all cases, it sounds as though more education is needed.

aslan
July 23rd, 2008, 07:45 PM
Wolfcat, very sorry to have had to have requested your other thread closed. I read this whole thing and some of the links especially the spay/neuter clinic, this is excellent. I really hope some of the media takes this seriously and prints this for all to see. Good job:thumbs up

wolfcat
July 23rd, 2008, 08:06 PM
1. Is this a Toronto-specific action - Yes, right now, to start. My city hall politicians just passed a tax grab cat licence plan and have a government run animal services bureaucracy that is quite happy to euthanize. No politician I know of cares about pets enough to do anything meaningful.

...something you'd like to see adopted Canada-wide? I wish but too big for me right now.

2. Is the main issue cat and dog overpopulation - YES
and an issue of ownership of animals being too easily transferred? -YES,
BOTH (they are related, I also think many people just dump their pets on the streets)

3. Or is the issue more one of a lack of responsibility on the part of pet owners? - sigh, NO. Again this does happen but changing bad pet ownership moves at the slow pace of evolution.

This issue (as I see it) is that there is a tremendous lack of education, understanding and compassion when it comes to our relationship with animals. We as a species, particularly in urban areas have become detached and disengaged. We mostly notice animals in pet product ads and I think our brain associates a living animal with a consummable product. Most of us are out of touch with them being living creatures.

Another solution I forgot to mention is:

*Petition Education Ministers, School Trustees, schools to implement elementary level programs where each young student has to care for a pet in the school (fish, cat, gerbil, whatever).

Why? To introduce compassion for living things early so we dont have teenagers and adults who abuse animals (or each other)

Again, I am asking for support (letters to media/politicians/etc) as well as ideas.:confused:

Thanks Dingo - the idea of preventing pet shops from selling other than rescue animals is a good one. Many of the one I know already subscribe to that, but it should be everywhere. If someone wants a breeder dog/cat, they should go direct to the breeder.

Winston
July 23rd, 2008, 08:10 PM
Wolfcat that was awesome! I really hope this brings to light the tragedy many of us and alot of others see going on and nothing is done about it!

You know what else is really sad and somewhat related is the poor seniors that are elderly but can still manage to care for a pet that are placed in homes and they have to give them up after many years! that is truly heartbreaking..I dont know what the perfect solution is but many of these pets end up in rescues, shelters and or euthanized..sad really...:yell:

I hope that something valuable comes from this! :thumbs up

Dingo
July 23rd, 2008, 08:11 PM
My city hall politicians just passed a tax grab cat licence plan and have a government run animal services bureaucracy that is quite happy to euthanize. No politician I know of cares about pets enough to do anything meaningful.

Licensing is a huge rip-off. I've written my MP regarding dog licensing in my city, which is out of control this year with enforcement officers patrolling all the places where people take their dogs. The pound has decided it needs more money, you see...

katherine93
July 23rd, 2008, 11:08 PM
Wow! That rehoming thread got vicious, :sorry: no wonder it's closed.

In an effort to turn it to the positive, here is what i have sent local Toronto media in the hope they will delve into it:

ANIMAL OVERPOPULATION PROBLEMS IN TORONTO
Vicious cycle of re-homing pets overwhelming shelters

For research, some good grist and heartfelt quotes you can report: http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/pet/

Even a cursory search reveals anguish of animal advocates at the impossible situation being faced.

Both free online classifieds – www.toronto.en.craigslist.ca and www.toronto.kijiji.ca/ are presently being inundated with (free) ad to dispose of (spinword term used is “rehome”) pets, primarily cats. People are offering kittens and cats for free, no strings attached, sometimes giving reasons like ‘I have to move and they don’t take pets there’ or ‘I work all day and cant give my pet the attention it deserves’.

Humane and rescue shelters are overcrowded and cannot cope with the steady stream of unwanted and stray animals. Although they do a lot to try to place properly spayed/neutered/vaccinated animals in their care – how can they compete with free throwaway ads on the internet? None of these shelters get government funding and rely on scarce charitable dollars.

What could be the solutions?

*Spay/neuter clinic opening up in late 2008/early 2009 in Newmarket to charge low rates for spay/neuter (website: www.spaycentral.com/ ). Will even do pickup and delivery.

* Create city-wide program whereby all pets and strays must be spayed/neutered, funded by the City (it's a health issue too)

* Legislate that NO ANIMAL may be transferred ownership without a set minimum fee being paid (fees to go to shelters)... kinda like swiching a used car registration when you sell it

* Education campaign to remind people that a ‘no pets’ requirement for tenants is invalid (it’s in the Ontario TENANT Protection Act, which list very, very limited parameters for this)

If we are caretakers of the planet, surely we are caretakers of its inhabitants, including the animals :grouphug:

Anyone else have constructive ideas on how to reverse this disposal trend and help the animals? :shrug::pray::confused:

I dont have anyideas to add, but would you mind if steal you idea, and put one in the newfoundalnd media's? Id want to take your words and switch them up a bit to make it useful in NFLD.. If you have a problem with this, tell me please..lol

bethaliz
July 24th, 2008, 12:14 AM
Humane and rescue shelters are overcrowded and cannot cope with the steady stream of unwanted and stray animals. Although they do a lot to try to place properly spayed/neutered/vaccinated animals in their care – how can they compete with free throwaway ads on the internet? None of these shelters get government funding and rely on scarce charitable dollars.:

I think that it would be a good idea for local kennel clubs to support their local humane society. Many cities, at least area's, have one or more all breed club. These are people who show, train, and work their dogs. One thing I"ve noticed is there are a lot of old people that are burnt out. We need to get new people who are energetic, like you, who want to help. Sure most clubs support pure breds, but they will never turn away a mix breed or rescue. Breeders and rescues should be working together, instead of fighting about whether or not a particular breeder is a byb. A byb isn't likely to jump in head first to try and change things.

To have a club (breed specific or all breed) you have to hold a show every year as well as a sanction match. These shows should encrouage the SPCA and local resuces to come out to the shows. Many puppy buyers come. This would be a great time for the SPCA and Resuces to find great homes for their dogs. Also, most shows charge a small entry fee for the general public, why not donate that money to the SPCA or local resuce? Why not have a donation box? Most exhibitors will donate. Or hold a rescue raffle or something to raise funds. The show will make their money from entries and food (at least thats what we hope), so its not a big deal to make the donation, and I think it can be written off. These clubs are supposed to support dogs, and this is the best way, don't you agree? It would help take some of the burden off of the SPCA and other rescues.



What could be the solutions?

*Spay/neuter clinic opening up in late 2008/early 2009 in Newmarket to charge low rates for spay/neuter (website: www.spaycentral.com/ ). Will even do pickup and delivery.:

They have one in Welland too, its not free, but its really inexpensive. And I think that vets in the area donate a few hours each week, but I'm not really sure. Apparently its been there for a while, but I only just found out about it, so I don't have the details.

However one Idea, along these lines, is; Why doesn't someone try to set up a free or inexpensive clinic? Maybe the SPCA could donate the space. Maybe the city could be encourage to offer funding for medical supplies. And if every Vet in Toronto (or what ever city you live in) were to donate even 4 hours once a month for free, just to preform s/n, think about it? there would be NO excuse for unfixed pets. I mean in Doctors do it for medical clinics, why not vets? Get some techs to do the same? it would cost virtually nothing to run, maybe for a cleaner and a seceratry.

I'm sure there are enough vets and techs in Toronto that they'd only haveto offer 4 hours once every couple of months. The Rescues and the SPCA could get all their charges fixed. Any dog that couldn't while in there care could be released on the terms that they are fixed by a certian time.....Free at this clinic or for a small fee. Nonrescue people who can't afford the cost of a s/n at their vet could apply for "funding". And maybe they pay $50, but the dog still gets fixed.

OOOO!!! Brainstorm.......Get pet companies Purina, Nutro, Sience Diet etc to fund it!!! They'd jump at something like that. Look what they did for the CKC National Charity Show last year? IF they donated that every year for a s/n clinic imagine home many pups we could get fixed? That would be an amazing thing!


* Create city-wide program whereby all pets and strays must be spayed/neutered, funded by the City (it's a health issue too):

See above............but also, I think that is should be law and that you need a licence to breed. You need one to drive, why not to breed? You'd have to meet minimum requirements etc. I mean you're suppose to licence your dogs (not that everyone does), and they do have or at least they used have breeders licences (to allow more than the 3 per household). So if the CKC and Canadian Law makers work together.........

- Make it law that only licenced breeders can breed. This would do a lot for byb and puppy mills. How? Well if

- The CKC requires every pup in a litter to be registered with a tattoo or a chip, so every dog that goes to the vet, any vet, they hook up to a national database that confirms the dogs id and makes sure the dog is registered, which should include licences, once s/n that infor should be listed too. If a pup comes in that can not be verified, then have the law enforce it. it would take a bit of work at first, but it could be done.

Obviously theres a lot that needs to go into it and it's just the start of an idea, but I think we need to get dog people to work together. They all have the same goal, but some many are going it alone. I don't know about cat, people, but In general we need to stop the cat fights and start working as a pack! lol! But really it's true. There are a lot of people out there that are actively working to correct the problem, and many more who want to help but don't know how or have lost their motivation and become defeated. If we work together, we'd get farther.


* Legislate that NO ANIMAL may be transferred ownership without a set minimum fee being paid (fees to go to shelters)... kinda like swiching a used car registration when you sell it:

Same kind of thing as above. You'd have to register all dog and make sure their all licenced, logistical nightmare, but with the righ push and with all the pet factions and the government working together it could be done. The major problem will be getting all the dogs, cats etc registered. The CKC wont because their not "purebred" so their may have to be two registries or national one to connect everyone, or the CKC to create a mix breed, cat etc registry. Obviously all s/n.......But getting the CKC to change will be harder than getting the government to change.....Sad but true. They're still fighting about fun licences for non-pure bred dogs to have obedience, rally and other dog sports. uggggg

"when we all work together, together together......"


* Education campaign to remind people that a ‘no pets’ requirement for tenants is invalid (it’s in the Ontario TENANT Protection Act, which list very, very limited parameters for this):

Its a great thing and it should be done. Both's should be set up at shows and other pet events. Literature should be offered at resuces and the SPCA when someone comes in to surrender a pet. Maybe free education classes could be offered.

Also, I worked for the Red Cross one year and each year they hired students (partially funded by the governments hire a student program), to go out to schools, summer camps, the Y etc to educate kids about dummer safety ( you know sun, boats, swimming etc). We had to call them and ask if we could come in and do an hour presentation. We had games and leaflets etc. It was fun and educational for the kids. The schools, camps ect were egar to have us come (time they didn't have to spend amusing them). Send the kids home with information for thier parents.

If you could get donations for literature, maybe a designer/journalist would donate time to put it togther so donations would just cover printing. And if you tried you might beable to get a discount or partial donation from the printer too. Get club members etc to donate time to give teh talks. Get someone to donate time to phone and make appointments. It could work. It would be a great way for the SPCA and rescues to get donations. Breed clubs could get members. It could work all the way around for everyone.

Edcaution is the key to stoping the next generation from making the same mistakes......Look at how well it's worked for recycling? Not everyone does it, but it's still huge. And when I was a kid kid they'd only just started. I'm not even 30 and it's huge.


1. Is this a Toronto-specific action - Yes, right now, to start. My city hall politicians just passed a tax grab cat licence plan and have a government run animal services bureaucracy that is quite happy to euthanize. No politician I know of cares about pets enough to do anything meaningful.

...something you'd like to see adopted Canada-wide? I wish but too big for me right now.


One step at a time, right. And the Internet is a HUGE tool. Use it. Get some people together to really work on this. I'm in your area and I'm willing to help. And Toronto, whether we like it or not, has a huge effect on the country. So get it working here, use the internet and the media. And hopefully others will do the same. It only takes one or two people, right?

One man makes one movie and we're 10x's more green.


You know what else is really sad and somewhat related is the poor seniors that are elderly but can still manage to care for a pet that are placed in homes and they have to give them up after many years! that is truly heartbreaking..I dont know what the perfect solution is but many of these pets end up in rescues, shelters and or euthanized..sad really...:yell:

I hope that something valuable comes from this! :thumbs up

I hope so too. I'm willing to work. I've been trying for a while to motivate my local club. Sadly, everyone is burnt out. We need energetic people. but don't worry I'm still trying!

As for the seniors......I know its not exctly the same but.......There is a charity shop, kind of like Value Village. The store sells second hand items. The profit from the stor goes into a fund to help families with pets. Maybe they can't afford a s/n or their dog is sick and needs emergancy vet care and they just dont have the money. This charity will help them. This way they don't have to surrender their pet to a rescue or the SPCA when they just need a little help. It's a good idea and should be implemented elsewhere.


Licensing is a huge rip-off.

I agree and I don't on this one. However, You have made some great points in other threads about focusing the energy on to byb's and puppy mills. Which is a great idea. One idea that our national breed club has is to make breeders responsible for what they breed. We are asking that for every puppy that a breeder, who is a member of our club, sells that they give $50 to our club to go directly into Rescue. What if the CKC did the same? What if more breed clubs did it? An ethical breeder will have no problem with that. It will help fish out bybs that are hiding under the umbrella of "reputable breeder because I'm a club member". It also makes breeders really be responsible for their actions and to think before they breed. If you're cutting a check for $50, bucks it doesn't seem so bad, but when you have to cut one for a few hundred. You have to wonder if you really needed to breed that many puppies. We even suggested it be done once a year with their annual membership. How much harder will that check be to right if you have to write it as one lump some? If you breed 20 puppies in a year, it doesn't seem like a lot at the time, but when you cut a check for a grand, it's a totally different thing. And it would help a lot.

Sorry I'm so long, but no one ever asks for my ideas.......and as you can tell I've been sitting on them for a while! lol! So anyone whose interested in implementing them. Go for it! Take all the credit.........But if you wouldn't mind naming a pup Duckie.....lol!!!

NoahGrey
July 24th, 2008, 07:38 AM
While I uderstand your frustations with the pet overpopulation...rehoming as nothing to do with the pet overpopulation. It has to do with not spaying/nueturing your pet.

As life happens, sometimes people have to find new homes for their pets. I also disagree with your statement that 'rehome' is another word for 'dispose'. How do you get that?

These people who are trying to find homes for their pets could have just simply dumped them on the side of the road, or tied them to a tree and walk away. This is what I call disposing of a pet. Not someone who is trying to find their pet a new loving home.

As an Animal Protection Officer, I see animals that are disposed of everyday. I also see people who surrender their pets, due to circumstances in their life, they unfortuntatly can no longer provide for their pet. These people could have very easily just 'dumped' their pet..instead of bringing their pet into the shelter.

Also, What about local newspapers that have ads for pets for sale/free to a good home. If you are going to target an issue...you have to target the issue has a whole and every venue.

I also have to mention those responsible breeders are also contributing to the pet overpopulation...for a quick buck.

In my opinion rehoming is not disposing. I understand that it is frustating to see these ads in the paper and myself hate to see them..but there are so much other worse ways that these people could have done. I am more less tolrate then all the breeders on the net, in the paper. Like I said above, these people are huge contributers to the pet overpopulation...but once they have 'responisble' in front of their name, every one seems to forget about the overpopulation.

Lets just hope for whatever life brings you, you will not have to be in the position to find your pet a new home.

ACO22

Love4himies
July 24th, 2008, 08:25 AM
So well said, ACO22. Any breed can be adopted from a shelter if one has patience, and if it doesn't come with "papers", so what, the pet is to be loved, not displayed?

I love the idea of city/province funded spay/neuter clinics, it would create a huge help in altering so there will be a decrease in feral colonies that exist in all cities.

Also, I would love to see a bylaw that all pets must be spayed/neutered PRIOR to new owners taking possession of their pets, including all shelter and pet store cats/dogs.

bethaliz
July 24th, 2008, 08:57 AM
While I uderstand your frustations with the pet overpopulation...rehoming as nothing to do with the pet overpopulation. It has to do with not spaying/nueturing your pet.

As life happens, sometimes people have to find new homes for their pets. I also disagree with your statement that 'rehome' is another word for 'dispose'. How do you get that?

These people who are trying to find homes for their pets could have just simply dumped them on the side of the road, or tied them to a tree and walk away. This is what I call disposing of a pet. Not someone who is trying to find their pet a new loving home.

As an Animal Protection Officer, I see animals that are disposed of everyday. I also see people who surrender their pets, due to circumstances in their life, they unfortuntatly can no longer provide for their pet. These people could have very easily just 'dumped' their pet..instead of bringing their pet into the shelter.

Also, What about local newspapers that have ads for pets for sale/free to a good home. If you are going to target an issue...you have to target the issue has a whole and every venue.

I also have to mention those responsible breeders are also contributing to the pet overpopulation...for a quick buck.

In my opinion rehoming is not disposing. I understand that it is frustating to see these ads in the paper and myself hate to see them..but there are so much other worse ways that these people could have done. I am more less tolrate then all the breeders on the net, in the paper. Like I said above, these people are huge contributers to the pet overpopulation...but once they have 'responisble' in front of their name, every one seems to forget about the overpopulation.

Lets just hope for whatever life brings you, you will not have to be in the position to find your pet a new home.

ACO22


I agree, rehoming isn't so much the issue. Sure there are poeple who do it in a "disposal" kind of way. for example there was a woman in my subdivision when I was in high school, who kept buying puppies. Once the puppy was no longer a puppy and "cute" she'd "rehome" it. Only to get another one. So in her case rehome did mean get rid of or dispose of.

But, we do live in crazy times where people are losing good jobs and they only job they can get is less than half of what they use to make. And whether or not the LAW says you can have pets, landlords can still chose to rent to someone without pets. I moved in to a place once, and didn't tell them about Roxie. They didn't ask and I didn't tell. I was the worst thing. they became hard landlords, the second they found out. So it can be tricky.

But I still think that there are things that people can do to help pets. Starting with s/n. I really think it's a feiable option to have free or low cost s/n clinics and for rescues and the spca to have all thier charges s/n. I also think that breeders should follow up on their s/n contracts. Just cause they sell a dog on a non-breeding contract doesn't absolve the responsiblity. All it means to the buy is the pups can't be registered. And a lot of people dont care about papers, they just want a good dog. So there's a lack of edcaution that needs to be addressed, and breeders who KNOW need to follow up. Take the dog back if proof of alteration isn't provided by say 6 months. Alter them before they leave and increase the price a bit.

But the thread was about ideas. So lets give the op some! It may not be for battling "rehoming", but if we can deal with other issues that may resolve it self anyway.

NoahGrey
July 24th, 2008, 10:04 AM
So in her case rehome did mean get rid of or dispose of.

There is no case...she simply disposed of her animals. Just because your 'thinking' you deem right, doesn't make it right.


[QUOTE=bethaliz;627685]I also think that breeders should follow up on their s/n contracts.

Or have them spayed and nuetured before going to their new home. OR and I am loving this idea better..HOW ABOUT breeders stop breeding and contributing to the pet overpopulation. Breeders seem to be invisable when discussing the topic of PO.

There is no difference between a male dog that got outside and got a female dog pregnant or the breeder who intentionally has litters. Besides breeders will never opt for having their litters fixed. In some cases, they get a small percentage and even some pups when one of their own has been adopted has puppies.

It's all about money for them. Responsible or irresponsible.


Sunny

Dingo
July 24th, 2008, 10:05 AM
One idea that our national breed club has is to make breeders responsible for what they breed. We are asking that for every puppy that a breeder, who is a member of our club, sells that they give $50 to our club to go directly into Rescue. What if the CKC did the same? What if more breed clubs did it? An ethical breeder will have no problem with that. It will help fish out bybs that are hiding under the umbrella of "reputable breeder because I'm a club member". It also makes breeders really be responsible for their actions and to think before they breed. If you're cutting a check for $50, bucks it doesn't seem so bad, but when you have to cut one for a few hundred. You have to wonder if you really needed to breed that many puppies. We even suggested it be done once a year with their annual membership. How much harder will that check be to right if you have to write it as one lump some? If you breed 20 puppies in a year, it doesn't seem like a lot at the time, but when you cut a check for a grand, it's a totally different thing. And it would help a lot.

Interesting idea. The catch of course being that breeders will simply add that $50 to the price of the puppy. So rescues will be getting a much-needed boost, but I wonder if any real difference will be made to backyard breeders and puppy mills, who can simply bill it as "CKC fees" or something similar that may give them a veneer of legitimacy.

Personally, I would like to see microchipping promoted as an alternative to licensing. Perhaps this isn't the place to get into it, but microchips would be a far more effective method of identifying and returning lost pets than a license tag. And the technology could potentially be used to prevent puppy mills too: if every puppy produced by a breeder (or sold or adopted) had to be microchipped, and if the microchip also carried some information about the breeder, it would be easy to determine who's producing large numbers of dogs and (for example) charge them additional fees accordingly. There's no reason I can see for any reputable breeder to be producing more than, say, 30 puppies a year; perhaps a "large-scale commercial pet breeder's licence" could be created that would cost, I dunno, $10,000 per year. That might make people think twice.

pitgrrl
July 24th, 2008, 10:27 AM
Or have them spayed and nuetured before going to their new home. OR and I am loving this idea better..HOW ABOUT breeders stop breeding and contributing to the pet overpopulation. Breeders seem to be invisable when discussing the topic of PO.


Am I misunderstanding or are you suggesting that all breeders, regardless of their level of responsibility and care (ie BYB vs. ethical breeders) stop breeding entirely? What then would happen in, say, 15 years when all current health tested, responsibly bred and placed dogs are dead?

(...and just for the record, I have two dogs straight off the street and will likely get any future dogs from rescue/pounds/a random street corner)

luckypenny
July 24th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Lots of good ideas everyone.

This one might seem a little far-fetched, but ideal in my imaginary perfect little world :D...how about having the breeding industry 'regulated' by the government? As it is now, in Quebec anyways, there is nothing illegal about byb's and puppymills. Other than to report some of these so-called businesses to Revenue Canada and Revenue Quebec (most of these places are not registered or mostly operate 'under-the-table'), there's nothing that can be done from a legal perspective.

So, I would propose a new, unbiased administration, including new legislation, that would regulate breeding of companion animals. Their mission would be to insure that:

1. all breeders are registered, pay their taxes (I know this one will go over well :D)

2. there would guidelines set in place regarding limited numbers of animals permitted to be bred by any one breeder (as well as a limit set on # of times a female is bred)

3. bred animals must be health certified

4. offspring completely vetted, microchipped, and spayed/neutered

5. :lightbulb: oh, how about requiring that all breeders take a course in animal care and ethical breeding. They would have to pass with 90% in order to get a license, which in turn would allow them to register with the government. No license? Then no breeding :shrug: .

With the monies collected through taxation and registration, a high percentage should be allotted to registered/non-profit shelters and Rescues to help with 'unwanted' pets or pets who 'need' to be rehomed. The balance would go towards administration and to INSPECTORS. Wow, inspectors, what a great idea :rolleyes:!! We have only, what? 2-3 in the province of Quebec :wall:?

The requirements of the inspectors would be to enforce the new legislation. There could be divisions of inspectors formed, some to actually work 'in the field' and others to 'police' newspapers, on-line classifieds, etc.

What do you all think?

*sigh* only in my perfect little world :o .

NoahGrey
July 24th, 2008, 10:39 AM
(...and just for the record, I have two dogs straight off the street and will likely get any future dogs from rescue/pounds/a random street corner)

And I applaud you for taking those dogs off the streets. And I agree with you on getting a new friend from a spca/rescue group. (please i hope you were not going to classify a rescue group with a breeder) From a street cornor..probably getting a dog from a puppy mill or back-yard breeder..then I have to shake my head.

For your breeder question. No, I don't think they should get rid of every responisble breeder..but I also think that it has gotten out of control and EVERYONE can become a breeder.

Besides, I have to believe that every shelter in the nation could spend years and years adopting out the animals that walk through their doors. Lets start with that.

ACO22

bethaliz
July 24th, 2008, 10:46 AM
There is no case...she simply disposed of her animals. Just because your 'thinking' you deem right, doesn't make it right.

I know she simply "disposed" of her animals. A comment had been made that real "rehoming" is valid. People get evicted, lose their jobs, get divorced etc and they have to fore sake their pets.

I've had it happen in my life. My parents lost their jobs, while I was away in college. They were living in their car, with the dog. And when winter came and they had no place to live they got desperate. A friend of a friend let them live in their basement, but said absolutely no dog. What were they going to do? Stay living in the car so they could keep the dog? And hope that one day they didn't wake up to see that the dog froze to death? that would not have been very responsible. My sister lived in a no pets room and she was able to hide the dog for a while. But it took almost 2 years for my parents to be able to take te dog back. If my sister couldn't have taken the dog, my parents would have had to give up the dog. It would be RESPONISBLE rehoming.

The problem with "rehoming" at least with online ads etc is that a lot of people just too guilty about giving up their pet and don't want to give it up to the SPCA, because then they have to explain why. So they just give it away to ease their minds. That is wrong. But it's going to be hard to stop every person. So we educate, and we work our butts off working at it from other angles and eventually things come together. It's the goal

Rehome doesn't always equal Disposal. And Rehome doesn't always mean need.



Or have them spayed and nuetured before going to their new home. OR and I am loving this idea better..HOW ABOUT breeders stop breeding and contributing to the pet overpopulation. Breeders seem to be invisable when discussing the topic of PO.

There is no difference between a male dog that got outside and got a female dog pregnant or the breeder who intentionally has litters.
Sunny

I agree, that breeders should be responsible for making sure their pups are altered, 100%. The trouble is getting them too. Many think that the pups are too young or need to mature first etc. And each breed will tell you different things that apply to "their" breed. And I don't have the energy to fight with them.

I'd rather say, do what you like, but make sure they are altered BEFORE they reproduce. I know my breeder doesn't like to do it before they leave, she'd rather wait until their closer to 5 months, mainly because their small (and I think she once told me the price is high because of the size, but I can't remember, it was a while ago). However, she follows up with her s/n contracts. The CKC requires that the pups papers be provided within 6month, at which time the pup should have been altered. So she refuses to relase the papers without proof of alteration. I've seen her remove a pup from a home because they didn't get the dog altered. She got it done and refused to relase the pup back to the home until they paid the vet bill. She had it in a written contract. So they had no leg to stand on.

So for those that don't mind altering before they leave Great do it! tack the price on to the cost of the pups and advertise that the added cost is for alteration. If the breeder thinks they should be a bit older, fine, but that BREEDER should follow it up. They are supposed to be responsible for them.

I don't think we should 100% full stop, stop breeding otherwise you lose good genes later down the line, and we need them. But I do think that it needs to be regulated, and you should need licences to do it. And breeders should be making sure that dogs from their lines are fixed that aren't intended for breeding.

[QUOTE=Dingo;627722]Interesting idea. The catch of course being that breeders will simply add that $50 to the price of the puppy. So rescues will be getting a much-needed boost, but I wonder if any real difference will be made to backyard breeders and puppy mills, who can simply bill it as "CKC fees" or something similar that may give them a veneer of legitimacy.
[QUOTE]


Of course there "catches", there always will be, but why not get some funding? It would help. Also, breeders that are trying to play the "responsible breeder" scam under the ploy of being a member, still have to follow club rules. And they would be papering their dogs. The records are avaliable to the breed clubs, so they can SEE how many pups are being produced and can ensure that the funds come in, or deny the membership renewal.

I'm sure te puppy buyer will end up paying the extra cost, with a price increas, But shouldn't they be helping too?

It's still a good idea. We really need to get all the pet people to work together. If we can do that, we can really affect change.

Dingo
July 24th, 2008, 10:51 AM
Yeah, I think puppy buyers should be helping as well, but I also think that the prices people are charging for purebreds are already pretty damn high as it is. Puppies of some breeds will set you back $3000. By and large, I don't think it's owners of purebred dogs purchased from reputable and ethical breeders that are the major cause of the problem when it comes to pet overpopulation.

bethaliz
July 24th, 2008, 11:07 AM
Lots of good ideas everyone.

This one might seem a little far-fetched, but ideal in my imaginary perfect little world :D...how about having the breeding industry 'regulated' by the government? As it is now, in Quebec anyways, there is nothing illegal about byb's and puppymills. Other than to report some of these so-called businesses to Revenue Canada and Revenue Quebec (most of these places are not registered or mostly operate 'under-the-table'), there's nothing that can be done from a legal perspective.

So, I would propose a new, unbiased administration, including new legislation, that would regulate breeding of companion animals. Their mission would be to insure that:

1. all breeders are registered, pay their taxes (I know this one will go over well :D)

2. there would guidelines set in place regarding limited numbers of animals permitted to be bred by any one breeder (as well as a limit set on # of times a female is bred)

3. bred animals must be health certified

4. offspring completely vetted, microchipped, and spayed/neutered

5. :lightbulb: oh, how about requiring that all breeders take a course in animal care and ethical breeding. They would have to pass with 90% in order to get a license, which in turn would allow them to register with the government. No license? Then no breeding :shrug: .

With the monies collected through taxation and registration, a high percentage should be allotted to registered/non-profit shelters and Rescues to help with 'unwanted' pets or pets who 'need' to be rehomed. The balance would go towards administration and to INSPECTORS. Wow, inspectors, what a great idea :rolleyes:!! We have only, what? 2-3 in the province of Quebec :wall:?

The requirements of the inspectors would be to enforce the new legislation. There could be divisions of inspectors formed, some to actually work 'in the field' and others to 'police' newspapers, on-line classifieds, etc.

What do you all think?

*sigh* only in my perfect little world :o .


Awesome! I really like the idea. It kind gives detail to what I've been thinking. Me, I get stuck at the application.......if only.....tisk

but still :thumbs up :thumbs up


For your breeder question. No, I don't think they should get rid of every responisble breeder..but I also think that it has gotten out of control and EVERYONE can become a breeder.

Besides, I have to believe that every shelter in the nation could spend years and years adopting out the animals that walk through their doors. Lets start with that.


Thanks for clarifying. And I agree. We need some laws, and probly more importantly, people to enforce them.

And I 100% agree that we need to start with the dogs currently needing homes. I think instead of Rescues jumping down the throats of breeders, they should work TOGETHER.

Seriously, when a breeder gets a puppy inquiry, they recommend other breeders who may have pups, Why not also mention their breed rescue? At shows, potential puppy buyers come looking for breeders with puppies. Why not have the rescue or spca have a booth at the show? Maybe some of those buyers might be interested in rescue if they saw the dog or had more information. One Club and breeder websites, have links to resuces etc.

pitgrrl
July 24th, 2008, 11:23 AM
And I applaud you for taking those dogs off the streets. And I agree with you on getting a new friend from a spca/rescue group. (please i hope you were not going to classify a rescue group with a breeder) From a street cornor..probably getting a dog from a puppy mill or back-yard breeder..then I have to shake my head.

I'm not sure where I equated a rescue with a breeder :shrug:

By "street corner" I meant a stray dog, not out of a cardboard box for $50. My two where, very literally, tied on a street corner. Did they likely come from one of the neighbourhood BYB? I'm fairly certain they did, but by the time they came to me they;d been abandoned, so not the same as buying them off some dork who took out an add in the local paper.


For your breeder question. No, I don't think they should get rid of every responisble breeder..but I also think that it has gotten out of control and EVERYONE can become a breeder.

Besides, I have to believe that every shelter in the nation could spend years and years adopting out the animals that walk through their doors. Lets start with that.


I guess to me the "everyone" who decides they're going to make a few extra bucks on the latest big-blue-purple-ribbon-300lbs-26inchhead-yorka-pittie-poo is a far, far cry from someone who is breeding very rarely, health testing, responsibly placing, working, showing and all around doing right by their dogs, the breed in which they are involved and dogs in general....oh, and probably loosing a ton of money in the process.

Lots of good ideas everyone.

This one might seem a little far-fetched, but ideal in my imaginary perfect little world :D...how about having the breeding industry 'regulated' by the government? As it is now, in Quebec anyways, there is nothing illegal about byb's and puppymills. Other than to report some of these so-called businesses to Revenue Canada and Revenue Quebec (most of these places are not registered or mostly operate 'under-the-table'), there's nothing that can be done from a legal perspective.

So, I would propose a new, unbiased administration, including new legislation, that would regulate breeding of companion animals. Their mission would be to insure that:

1. all breeders are registered, pay their taxes (I know this one will go over well :D)

2. there would guidelines set in place regarding limited numbers of animals permitted to be bred by any one breeder (as well as a limit set on # of times a female is bred)

3. bred animals must be health certified

4. offspring completely vetted, microchipped, and spayed/neutered

5. :lightbulb: oh, how about requiring that all breeders take a course in animal care and ethical breeding. They would have to pass with 90% in order to get a license, which in turn would allow them to register with the government. No license? Then no breeding :shrug: .

With the monies collected through taxation and registration, a high percentage should be allotted to registered/non-profit shelters and Rescues to help with 'unwanted' pets or pets who 'need' to be rehomed. The balance would go towards administration and to INSPECTORS. Wow, inspectors, what a great idea :rolleyes:!! We have only, what? 2-3 in the province of Quebec :wall:?

The requirements of the inspectors would be to enforce the new legislation. There could be divisions of inspectors formed, some to actually work 'in the field' and others to 'police' newspapers, on-line classifieds, etc.

What do you all think?

*sigh* only in my perfect little world :o .

LP, I think these are great ideas. I do have a couple of hesitations though.

1-who would write, and then re-write in order to pass, this type of legislation?

Legislation written by people not actively involved in the world of dogs (and by this I would mean those involved in rescue, training, breeding, etc. all aspects basically) are not likely to to able to author effective or fair legislation. If I'm remembering correctly, there was a big hoopla in California a while back because proposed legislation inadvertently made it more difficult for small scale, ethical breeders and working dog owners/breeder while leaving large "commercial" breeders able to get around it.

2-what would be the costs associated with being a "registered" breeder? Again, I bring this up because clearly most ethical breeders do not make a living doing this, and usually loose money in the process of health testing, traveling to shows and/or working events, etc., whereas BYB, puppymills, etc. are a for profit enterprise and are less likely to find costs prohibitive to continuing pumping out puppies.

So perhaps the same ideas could be disassociated from $$, as to render the playing field more even? Perhaps inspectors (which clearly Quebec at least is in desperate need of) could be funded by the licensing of animals (doesn't Calgary manage to fund it's AC this way?)


Seriously, when a breeder gets a puppy inquiry, they recommend other breeders who may have pups, Why not also mention their breed rescue? At shows, potential puppy buyers come looking for breeders with puppies. Why not have the rescue or spca have a booth at the show? Maybe some of those buyers might be interested in rescue if they saw the dog or had more information. One Club and breeder websites, have links to resuces etc.

I think it's also important to show rescue/pound/muttly dogs doing things, as often people think they might be interested in some sort of dog sport, showing, competing with their dog, but seem to think one must have a papered dog to do so. Getting examples of un-papered dogs competing in a variety of activities I think would go a long way to change people's minds not only about what you can do with a rescued dog, but also that dogs who did not come from a breeder are not all damaged, messed up leftovers.

Dingo
July 24th, 2008, 11:25 AM
what would be the costs associated with being a "registered" breeder? Again, I bring this up because clearly most ethical breeders do not make a living doing this, and usually loose money in the process of health testing, traveling to shows and/or working events, etc., whereas BYB, puppymills, etc. are a for profit enterprise and are less likely to find costs prohibitive to continuing pumping out puppies.

This is why I suggested something like a "large-scale commercial pet breeder" license.

luckypenny
July 24th, 2008, 11:54 AM
My two where, very literally, tied on a street corner.
:cloud9: Two of the luckiest puppies to have had you to find them.

1-who would write, and then re-write in order to pass, this type of legislation?
Perhaps ppl in the 'field' could be nominated or can apply? Let's say veterinarians, established/ethical breeders, shelter/Rescue employees, behaviorists/trainers, etc. just to name a few. Basically ppl involved with different yet important aspects of companion animals in general. A multi-disciplinary approach would be most effective imo.

2-what would be the costs associated with being a "registered" breeder? Again, I bring this up because clearly most ethical breeders do not make a living doing this, and usually loose money in the process of health testing, traveling to shows and/or working events, etc., whereas BYB, puppymills, etc. are a for profit enterprise and are less likely to find costs prohibitive to continuing pumping out puppies.

That would be the whole point, I guess. Making it next to impossible to have the breeding industry so profitable for the byb's and puppy/kitty millers. If they have to pay extra fees, including income taxes, for their 'business' as well as the cost of proper vetting, health certificates, s/n, etc...and then tack that on to their regular asking price for the pet...the majority of ppl looking for companion animals would find the prices unacceptable and would turn to ethical breeders and/or shelters/Rescues instead. That would be the ideal anyways.

Perhaps any extra-costs for proven ethical breeders would be tagged on to the purchase price of puppies. As it is now, aren't ethical breeders already doing all the health tests (many micro-chip already too) and have registered businesses? The extra-costs, if any, would be a minimal fee and spay/neutering which would, in turn, be charged to the buyer. A responsible buyer would have to pay this amount anyways, right? It would probably be cheaper purchasing a s/n pet from a breeder as I'm sure the breeders would get certain discounts from vets as based on volume and return clients. Just like it works with most shelters and Rescues already.

pitgrrl
July 24th, 2008, 12:20 PM
I really like this first paragraph, and I think that would really be key in writing effective legislation:



Perhaps ppl in the 'field' could be nominated or can apply? Let's say veterinarians, established/ethical breeders, shelter/Rescue employees, behaviorists/trainers, etc. just to name a few. Basically ppl involved with different yet important aspects of companion animals in general. A multi-disciplinary approach would be most effective imo.


...but can't you just picture the in fighting and nit picking that would happen if you put all these people in a room together ?:laughing:


That would be the whole point, I guess. Making it next to impossible to have the breeding industry so profitable for the byb's and puppy/kitty millers. If they have to pay extra fees, including income taxes, for their 'business' as well as the cost of proper vetting, health certificates, s/n, etc...and then tack that on to their regular asking price for the pet...the majority of ppl looking for companion animals would find the prices unacceptable and would turn to ethical breeders and/or shelters/Rescues instead. That would be the ideal anyways.

Perhaps any extra-costs for proven ethical breeders would be tagged on to the purchase price of puppies. As it is now, aren't ethical breeders already doing all the health tests (many micro-chip already too) and have registered businesses? The extra-costs, if any, would be a minimal fee and spay/neutering which would, in turn, be charged to the buyer. A responsible buyer would have to pay this amount anyways, right? It would probably be cheaper purchasing a s/n pet from a breeder as I'm sure the breeders would get certain discounts from vets as based on volume and return clients. Just like it works with most shelters and Rescues already.


I don't think a lot of, lets call them ethical hobby breeders, are registered as business and I certainly don't think that people breeding working dogs (like working border collies for example) are registered businesses. I also think it gets sticky because a lot of good breeders basically give their puppies away to specific people, rather than re-couping costs by selling to the general public, ya know?

Maybe there could be the basic guidelines for all breeders, those things that responsible breeders already do as you mentioned, but on top of that there would be different categories so that the "ethical hobby/working dog breeders" could be left alone and the larger scale "commercial breeders" could be heavily financially penalized. The random BYB would, if enforcement was figured out in a realistic way, wouldn't be able to operate without shelling out big time for health testing, etc..........

I dunno though really, it's such a confusing, subtle thing trying to figure out what rules would only punish those who deserve it. There always seems to be someone getting caught up in it that shouldn't.

I do think there's a whole other aspect too, which is not legislative at all. Fundamentally people's attitudes towards animals need to be changed, more resources need to be available to help people care for and keep their pets and we need to (re?) gain a level of common sense when it comes to dogs or cats that seems to have been lost with the rise of dog/cat/pet as accessory. :yell:

Dingo
July 24th, 2008, 12:23 PM
It'll be interesting to see what impact, if any, the tainted pet food cases will have on this. If people are successful in arguing that they should be compensated for more than just the purchase value of their animal (ie: that they should be compensated for emotional suffering, as some people are claiming in their cases) it could have a far-reaching effect on issues like this.

luckypenny
July 24th, 2008, 12:43 PM
I think the rules would have to be applied straight across the board in order for it to be effective. I'm thinking what would stop a byb or puppymiller from claiming that he's breeding working dogs for friends :shrug: .

I do think there's a whole other aspect too, which is not legislative at all. Fundamentally people's attitudes towards animals need to be changed, more resources need to be available to help people care for and keep their pets and we need to (re?) gain a level of common sense when it comes to dogs or cats that seems to have been lost with the rise of dog/cat/pet as accessory.

I'm thinking legislation would actually start to reverse this trend and many ppl's attitudes towards companion animals. Look at seat-belt laws, laws forbidding the sale of cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery tickets to minors, laws pertaining to drinking and driving, to name but a few. In these cases, it has served to change the mindset of the general population. What used to be considered unimportant and "cool" has become viewed as unacceptable and illegal. I would hope it would have the same effect in this case.

...but can't you just picture the in fighting and nit picking that would happen if you put all these people in a room together ?:laughing:

:D Yep, I can.

I am aware though, that many vets, behaviorists/trainers, breeders, already work in partnerships supporting each other. Especially when it comes to shelters and Rescues. The most successful Rescues and shelters already work together in conjunction with other professionals. And guess what, more often than not, it works :thumbs up . Not to get too off-topic here, but look at the association created by several Rescues here in the Montreal area. Politics aside, they've formed a team in support of each other, which in turn, benefits the animals in their care. I would be hopeful that the same kind of "teamwork" could be applied elsewhere.

hazelrunpack
July 24th, 2008, 01:05 PM
This is why I suggested something like a "large-scale commercial pet breeder" license.

They tried that here, but trying to get politicians to actually look at the problems and understand can be nearly impossible. The bill that went to committee was so restrictive in some ways and so vague in others that it wouldn't have touched the puppymillers (other than perhaps gotten them more breeding stock), but made it very difficult for ethical breeders. The bill died on the table when the session ended, thankfully.

Just because someone proposes legislation and licensing doesn't mean it will help in the long run and in our case, it would have made things worse. :shrug:

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to legislate for this problem, but really good licensing regulations for this type of thing can be hard to come by.

luckypenny
July 24th, 2008, 01:14 PM
I was hoping you would see this thread, HRP :) . In an 'ideal world' :o, if you could do anything, how would you approach this dilemma?

hazelrunpack
July 24th, 2008, 01:42 PM
I was hoping you would see this thread, HRP :) . In an 'ideal world' :o, if you could do anything, how would you approach this dilemma?


Off the record? I'd throw all the bums out of office in the state capitol to start... :rolleyes: :p

Other than that, research, research, research. Like good parenting, good animal ownership is hard to legislate. I wish the committees would ask questions, take tours, talk to ethical breeders. But although they supposedly consulted with people from all facets of the 'industry' (:rolleyes:) I have yet to locate one sporting dog kennel, for instance, that was consulted.

If it were me, I'd want to identify the worst of the problems, and address them first. You can always add something to a law if it turns out to be lacking. It's much more difficult to get it off the books once it's there.

I'd also look at sources of outside input--we had a lot of peta and HSUS involvement here, but none of it open and honest--and I'd not let the bill's rules be promulgated after the bill is passed by some unelected administrator.

What would I like to see in a bill? At a minimum, more regulation for kennels over a certain size (number of animals), including mandatory inspections. Requisite conditions for keeping animals laid out in the proposed law, so that the legislators knew exactly what they were voting for or against. (In the proposal here, the nuts and bolts of the bill--the conditions under which the animals were to be kept--were to be laid out later as an administrative rule, with very little public input and oversight...this is where the ethical breeders and even the shelters could have been really hit hard.) The ability for law enforcement to go in when there is good cause to think there is abuse, even if a citizen has not made a complaint (the law here required a citizen complaint before an investigation could be initiated...so the puppy mills would simply have closed off access to their operations).

I'd love to see more programs funded for education...but although I'd love to see attitudes change, there are some people that you just are never going to convince. :shrug:

Ideally, I'd love to see more money go to shelters and to fund spay/neuter clinics.

But I'm also not naive enough to think that the money raised through licensing would pay for either of the last two items... Just the extra inspections would be expensive enough to swallow the licensing fees. :sad:

If it were an ideal world and I could anything? Well...I'd have enough millions to set up all the education and rescue services myself. :D

ETA: Was that the dilemma you had in mind, LP? :o It's a little off-topic from what the OP had in mind, I think... :shrug: