A solution to the dog overpopulation problem: Should unclaimed dogs be exterminated & more?

Before everyone gets all emotional, i ask you to first think with your HEAD and with common sense about what is possible for us to do.
I got an answer on a previous question of mine that i thought was a great answer and it outlined some solutions to the problems of the dog world:

''We created dogs as tools. First for hunting, then herding, protection, and finally rescue and companionship. So long as they are useful beyond their cost in resources, there should be no reason to destroy any given variety. Yet we are at a point where their existence sometimes does nothing but waste resources. Consider the SPCA and animal control services. We have let dogs, cats, and a few other species to propagate beyond our desire to care for them. I say we should severely punish those responsible for propagating domestic animals in useless quantities, destroy all unclaimed animals and tax the living hell out of any service or product that has anything to do with domestic pet species. It would be cheaper to cull and control the breeding of these animals than to do nothing but waste resources on keeping unwanted animals safe and healthy.''

What do you think of these solutions?
If they were put into place, would you support them?
Are there any programs or laws in your area geared towards bringing down the population of unwanted dogs? If so, how successful has it been?

2010-08-17T06:52:55Z

Sharon - i have never owned anything but intact dogs. Never had a litter either.... strange.

2010-08-17T06:56:37Z

I should make this clearer - i am asking about DOG overpopulation. Not human. When i want solutions to human over population, i will ask in a human section.
The two don't compare, despite what some people try to insist.

2010-08-17T06:57:29Z

Thank you Rayven for answering the questions asked...

2010-08-17T07:24:56Z

Shelters, pounds, rescues, re-homing centres, stray dog compounds... whatever.
Starting there because, well, that is where the excess dogs end up!
Cannot control common sense, doesn't mean the mess that is created from peoples lack of it cannot be cleaned up.

2010-08-17T07:26:59Z

The above passage is from another users answer to my question...
I may post a follow up question as to what i think is the root of the problem and how it can be solved. The above would just be the start...

2010-08-17T07:29:49Z

@ Jennifer M.
People do not think past their wants, i agree 100%. I would suggest denying them what they *want* regardless of their *rights*.
But, too much PC cr@p going on to do that on an effective level.

2010-08-17T07:34:17Z

@ Bells.
I think know what you mean. All the dogs are given an equal right to be sold on, pushing up the population and need for shelters. If the space is created, it will be filled.
The RSPCA in some areas have stopped taking in dogs from the public, regardless of circumstance and just focusing on housing dogs from abuse/neglect cases... It will be interesting to see the effects of that.

2010-08-17T07:40:45Z

Thank you to everyone who has disagreed with the solutions and actually gave real reasons as to why!

2010-08-17T07:54:08Z

@ Uhave2be
Possibly... but, it is 15:53 here now and i have a REALLY bad short term memory. If i waited any longer i would have forgotten what i was going to ask!

2010-08-17T08:25:32Z

Dogs have been companions ever since the first companion breed. I have ZERO issues with pets and i believe the companion breeds and similar dogs should be touted MORE as suitable dogs for that purpose.

If you think i am proposing we destroy the entire species of dogs, you REALLY didn't get it. Yes, WE created them, WE created the current mess and it is OUR responsibility to clean it up, CLEAN IT, not manage it or pander to it.

You want to debate with me about actual wild animals and the purpose they serve? Next time, come armed with facts and arguments that work in the real world.
George Carlin said about those animals better than i could:
''Let them go gracefully! Leave Nature alone! Haven't we done enough?''

We are not the 'masters of the world' but we ARE top of the food chain and the most intellectual. I am NOT a self hating human. I do not put the lives of my loved ones on a par with every bottom feeding creature on the planet. I DO discriminate to serve MY species.

2010-08-17T08:25:39Z

I do not have children. When i do, they will be raised to look at the world how it is, not how they want it to be. They will be brought up to respect life and to know that respecting and loving life also requires some hard decisions to be made.

If you see us nothing more than a burden and a selfish cancer on the planet and that we should be doing more charitable things to help out the world, then lead by example to eradicate the cancer the humans represent. After all, charity begins at home.

Maybe you will want to actually answer the specific points in the question now??

2010-08-17T08:34:27Z

To sum up the above basically... help those who have a chance to PROSPER successfully without becoming a burden do so!!
We didn't get to where we are now by living in trees and flinging our sh-t at each other the whole time...

2010-08-17T08:56:47Z

What isn't part of nature.... nature is darwins law, something that we are arrogant enough to ignore.
There are many things humans do that i do not agree with and will fight against.

How exactly is this a whine? I came on, gave possible solutions to a problem we all know exists. People did disagree with my opinion - something which i ENJOY when they can back it up with a reasonable argument.

''Seeing you know nothing about me, you cannot possibly know what I am capable of believing in and fighting for.
You sound like a person who believes in nothing, and fights for nothing.''
And you know me HOW exactly?? You have NO IDEA what i fight for and believe in. You have taken small examples from my opinions and decided that you know me enough to make that judgement....

My opinion is the only one that is right? again, read above. Uhavetobe & Jennifer M and a few others disagreed, was i bitter to either of them for having a different opinion? Nope.

2010-08-17T09:01:25Z

I'm also curious as to what i have to be bitter about? Enlighten me.
You are the one who came here and focused your answer to a previous question i asked and have yet to comment on this actual question... Hmmm....

2010-08-17T09:37:45Z

''You whole position is based on an incorrect assumption that dogs are still just "tools" in our world. ''
As opposed to what? Regardless of what you want to believe, that is why dogs were created, to be tools and to be utilized as such.
Yes, millions of them are enjoyed as PETS. Read above what i wrote about companion breeds and many people have working dogs that also consider them pet dogs.

''And yes, you are coming across as a bitter person with nothing to care about. Maybe you should go back and read some of what you wrote in reply.''
Which part should i read back over, please do tell...

''Where are your facts again that this will work? Eradication is a quick fix for a problem that is never successful. ''
The reason i asked this as an opinion question is because it hasn't been done to establish facts! On either side of the argument.

''I could supply examples, but would not want to offend anyone with human comparisons.''
Extrapolation doesn't cut it i'm afraid...

Rayven ~ SCAdian girl2010-08-17T06:56:01Z

Favorite Answer

Some parts yes some parts no. The main problem being who's going to pay for all this and ENFORCE any of this?

The second being depending on where you are business owners are already getting bent over by the local government and taxing them further is going to drive more people out of business. In this economy that is NOT what we need. And how would that affect rescues/shelters? Technically that is a SERVICE. Vets? Trainers?

Do I believe a good portion of the dog population should probably be put down? Yes. Do I think its going to happen with the current "all dogs can be fixed/saved" mentality of some people? Not any time soon. Come on we can't even get people to agree totally with a permanent fix to CURRENT feral dog packs in the us.

ETA: Notice you have already gotten the "look at the human population" comparison.

God forbid someone remind that that the majority of pregnancies are PLANNED, WANTED and not affecting the system. That is HARDER to get a child adopted thanks to the system and ****** up laws that prevent singles and/or same sex couples from adopting. Or the fact we as humans have full control over whether we reproduce or not and are not simply acting out of instinct.

Not to mention in some areas to over population issue is OVERSTATED. Check your local rescue groups and see how many bring up animals from high kills down south.

ETA: " Despite the old wives' tale about “training” your pet not to breed, this is not possible. " Sharon and what "old wives" tale would that be since I never heard it. I DO know simple responsibility and an understanding of dog reproduction prevents mating all the time. Otherwise how do you think GOOD breeders can go without having a litter on every heat?

Some of us are able to understand how to keep our dogs on our property, an in season ***** properly secured and dogs of opposite sex in the same home from mating.

Is everyone like that? No. Doesn't mean I should have to fix my dogs because someone else is irresponsible.

anne: I was referring to Sharon's comment of how many children are born in the US every day. Leaving third world countries aside where they even know what SEX leads to - there majority of children in this country are wanted- whether for a GOOD reason or religious guilt.

We have birth control options to fit EVERYONE
We have the morning after pill
we have the right to abortions.

Pregnant teens still have the option of not carrying to term. And again we as humans still make the choice about sex and pregnancy. Even in third world countries if a child isn't wanted there are ways around it, some dangerous(natural abortive) and some downright cruel(leaving infants to the elements)

Spurgeon2014-05-25T08:07:09Z

lf l had my way l would tax the hell out of owners and exterminate
all unwanted dogs.Dogs may be dear to owners but to the rest of us it is a irritating nuesense.When you consider that there is nothing whatsoever to gain from pets for the public.They compete with man for food sheter and vet fees.
Unlike cattle they produce zero benefit
to the public.All we have to show is dog mess on our pavements, constant noise from barking, and constant fear from attacks.and all that for what?

Jennifer M~ Got the Giggles2010-08-17T07:24:53Z

I get your point....I really do. I'm just not sure it is feasible.

I know your opinion on allowing your dogs to remain intact. While I totally respect this and I knwo YOU are able to be a responsible owner of intact dogs, many aren't. I also know that you would be quite pissed if you were in a mandatory spay and neuter area. The mandatory Spay and Neuter laws in areas such as Las Vegas have been largely unsuccessful. There are loopholes.

I think the problem is, that it is hard to distinguish the "good" dog owners from the irresponsible ones. Then, we have all owners lumped together and subjected to the laws that should only affect the "bad" ones.

The problem is, a dog is considered property and then as humans we have rights with our property. I hear it all the time here "don't listen to these idiots. It's your dog, breed it if you want to." We live in an egocentric "it's all about me" world. People don't think of the big picture. Frankly many don't think past their own wants and needs.

While I think your plan has a basis for solving the problem, I don't think it will work.

ETA: I think UHave2Be summed up part of what I was trying to say waaaaay better than I did. (Its before 8am for me too...I think we are both in CA) It seems that laws sometimes only affect the people who follow them. There will still be selfish idiots who do what they want.

Funny thing is, I don't care if someone like you (Jen) or UHave2Be has an intact dog because I know you will not have "accident" litters BUT the only law that I have seen so far attempting to control the animal population is mandatory spay and neuter laws. To get around it, you just have to pay your $20 a year and some BYB, pet quality dog can keep pumping out litters. Maybe if they were more selective who was allowed the permit...I dunno. Like you said, too early to make my brain work! :)

college_girl08132010-08-17T07:08:40Z

Dogs have come to serve a new purpose: companionship. This purpose among the usually thought of purposes like livestock herding, sled pulling, hunting, etc are useful to human society. The only problem we have is with owners of these pets who do not or cannot afford to take care of their pets. Cats are not as useful in other areas, but serve great as companions and as pest removers. Sometimes people can't afford to take care of their animal any longer, or their pet has puppies or kittens because they couldn't get their animals spayed or neutered. This problem will not go away by charging more money to those who have animals, only by allowing them less expensive options to take care of their pets, at least vital services like spay & neuter, euthanization, and shots that are vital to the safety of the populations of both people and pets such as rabies, parvo, worms, etc. This is the only way that the overpopulation and cost will go down. The bottom line is, some people do extremely stupid things, have extremely stupid ideas, and cannot help to create problems for everyone else. The only way to fix this problem is through education and affordableness.

Yes, unwanted animals that are being kept in shelters should probably be euthanized if they are there for too long of a time and no one wants them. It's sad, but that's how it is.

If these solutions were put into place, I would not be able to support them, because they would not work. People still smoke even though cigarettes keep getting more and more expensive.

There are low income spay and neuter clinics everywhere. The one I volunteer at is in a small town who used to have an extreme overpopulation of stray cats and a small number of stray dogs. Since we started doing the clinic, the number of these strays has been cut in half. Partially because generous townspeople have brought in some of these strays to be fixed and get a few shots to help keep them from spreading diseases. The problem with these is that people don't know about them, and that a few people are stupid enough to think that they want to breed their dogs or that their dog is tougher without being fixed. These people just need to be educated and over time, there would be fewer and fewer of them.

Aphrodite ☼2010-08-17T09:35:43Z

What do you think of these solutions? - I agree that if you play with people's taxes and emotions (by making them understand the severity of the problem that they all have created) it would do a lot to stop BYBing and over run shelters. But would mass euthanization solve the problem? Absolutely not. You would just be opening up more spaces for more badly bred dogs to fill.

If they were put into place, would you support them? - Being in the legal field, I would have to see something in writing before I decided to lend my support lol. I wouldn't support anything that would make the lives of breed specific rescues any harder than it already is.

Are there any programs or laws in your area geared towards bringing down the population of unwanted dogs? If so, how successful has it been? - Recently the OSPCA has been opening clinics for low cost spay and neuter, I'm talking like $60 for the procedure. I have seen people get their dogs and cats altered there, who would otherwise not do it because they didn't want to spend the money at a vet's office. Because this program is relatively new, it's hard to say if it's making a difference yet.

Show more answers (28)