moosmum Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) This legislation,in its entirety,does nothing less than create perfect conditions for a thriving black market in dogs. Some will be caught and the authorities can give themselves a pat on the back for exposing yet another puppy farmer.Never mind that they created the situation where they will thrive and for every one exposed there will 20 more. Those who buy their puppy interstate and try to keep it entire will not chip,not register,and of nescesity it will be kept undercover and underexposed to life. If that dog needs veterinary attention or gets lost.....The owners will do nothing for fear of prosecution. There will be many interstate or "illegal" dogs ending up in the pounds. There are many models for change around the world that are proven to work.(I think Calgary? in Canada has an excellent one) Most of these effective models work on the premise that people generaly,are not willfully ignorant or irresponsible,or useless at self determination.They work with the owners to find solutions and teach responsible care and ownership. Pretty weird when you think these laws are similar to those for gun ownership. Edited January 17, 2011 by moosmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 No question the Calgry model is by far the best thing going to solve all of the animal control issues. There are 2 videos around somewhere, which I will look for them, where they go over every part of the program and how to put it into practice. You should see how the numbers change after this program is put inot place!!! It is brilliant! Here are some comments and numbers about this program. Over the past 18 years, the city of Calgary has cut their number of dog bites and chases by more than 50% (all the while, the human and dog population of Calgary has doubled). Calgary’s dog licensing rate is over 90%, where 10-30% is the norm in California. Many stray pets that are picked up by Calgary Animal Services are returned straight home, they aren’t even taken to the shelter to be impounded. This saves money and it saves lives. The taxpayers of Calgary pay nothing for this excellent service. It’s all paid for by pet licensing fees. “Your pet’s license is his ticket home” is the motto. California’s taxpayers pay $249 million a year for animal control, but get inferior service compared to what Calgary delivers at no cost to their taxpayers. Key to Calgary’s success no – mandatory spay/neuter no – breed specific legislation no – pet limit laws no – anti-tethering laws yes – providing valued services rather than simply punishing citizens into compliance yes – buy in and cooperation among community stakeholders thanks to an animal control director who is a professional mediator yes – extensive education and PR campaign to emphasize responsible pet ownership yes – low license fees and modest fee differential for intact pets Some interesting reads http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Dog_Licensing http://ar-hr.com/2009/10/18/%E2%80%9Cit%E2...nimal-services/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Infringement notices and prosecutions are not the only ways to improve compliance. Sometimes you feel like you are beating your head up against a brick wall and nothing changes.... What other things would you suggest (this is said in the nicest possible way as there might be answers in your contribution)? Does this mean you didn't read my posts? Seems an odd way to have a discussion. I made four suggestions: - Lobby market owners to refuse access to NSW PFers selling companion animals - If that should fail, public awareness campaign about buying PFed pets from markets - Enforce current registration laws - Free desexing for pets belonging to welfare recipients and low income earners. Perhaps you could let me know what you're beating your head against? If there are repeat BYBers, wouldn't enforcement of current desexing, microchip and registration laws would give them cause for pause? Edit: If you are talking about compliance strategies, the first rule is to identify the problem behaviour you want to change. What is the problem behaviour? Edited January 17, 2011 by SkySoaringMagpie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now