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

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)

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?

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! :)

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.

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.

I am all for taxes that could help eliminate the breeding of dogs beyond their cost in resources.

If I understand this correctly that would not work since the BYB and Puppy Mills do not exceed the resources to produce the animal since they operate with no vet care, minimal food, no employees to ensure the upkeep and humane treatment of the dogs etc. I would estimate that they work on a 75 to 90% profit. So tax the hell out of them? There is slight problem with this, they do not claim them as a business and pay no income taxes. So how would the government know they exist and how would they catch them or the people that support them. That lies in the hands of local government. No federal funds mean no local resources to enforce any laws, also remember allot of these animals are sold on the internet, again how would you trace this money,there is no internet regulations We must face facts the government has a few more priorities then dogs and cats.

There are many low cost even free spay/neuter clinics, many offer free spay/neuter for ferrel animals.

Problem with that, only a real animal lover will take the time to trap these animals and take them to the clinics. Many counties only have a few animal control officers, they don't have the resources to troll the streets. So again no money. Dog owners are suppose to resister dogs with the city/county and that generates some revenue. This is about $15.00 or so bucks. So does you the average Joe Blow does it? Again who is going to enforce that.

Then you have the APBT problem. I was watching a program last night on "Gang Dogs" dang near every one of them had a Pit, Rott, Presa, and they breed them like rabbits. We are taking 10 of thousands of dogs.Everyone is outraged but they do nothing. If they are busted then the dogs are put into a already over crowded shelter.

Allot of these have to be held until the court case, before they are euthanized or the .1% are adopted. The responsible owners take the heat for this problem.

As a dog owner I would be happy to pay an additional tax to help with this problem. I do pay extra for owning a "dangerous dog". I volunteer, rescue and contribute. It doesn't bother me because I am a responsible owner. In the grand scheme we are few and far between.

Kill shelters are a necessary evil, but what would we do without them? There is not choice but to euthanise the unwanted dogs

I will not go into the human overpopulation since I am sure I would be hung up by my toes for my opinions on that.

I have no idea if I answered your question and maybe this is just a rant.

Add: I do agree that we are taxed way too much. But I would rather pay a tax to help with these issues instead of being taxed to study ant hills and the average life of roaches.

We are already paying for these useful studies {roll eyes in disgust}

"severely punish those responsible for propagating domestic animals in useless quantities"

Yes.

I think that breeding should be far more controlled than it is now.

All "pet quality" dogs spayed/neutered (or huge fines in place for a pet quality breeding), licensing, testing etc. etc. done prior to breeding. Not likely to ever happen, but it'd be nice...

"destroy all unclaimed animals "

As much as I hate to say it, there should be an "expiry"

Not only to "save tax dollars" but also, what kind of life is it for a dog to be sitting in a cage waiting for *that* family to come, year in and year out?

In Canada the shelters don't euthanize unless there is something severely wrong...or if the OSPCA comes in and decides to euth them all....

"tax the living hell out of any service or product that has anything to do with domestic pet species"

What is meant here?

Like dog food, training classes, treats? No I don't agree with that one.

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?

Yeah the pit bull ban.

Not successful at all. The way it was enforced was done completely wrong. I have heard of labs being destroyed because of it, and I still see pit puppies frequently.

As I stated in my response to this person's answer to the last question....no, because MY opinion of "waste of resources" is different from others. I personally do not think allotting money to give unwanted pets at least some potential at living out a life in a good home a waste. Even if that potential is only a short 7 days in a shelter cage.

I would fully support the idea of controlling breeding though. However, that's one of those things people would still ignore and continue to add to the population problem. Heavier fines, permenant loss of animal privilages, etc. would help slightly...but certainly not stop the problem.

There is a free spay/neuter program in my area that is geared to keep the average pet owner from producing more unwanted pets. Before anyone gets all intact-rights crazy...I said AVERAGE pet owner. I'm well aware many of you can keep intact pets from ever having a litter. The majority of owners can't.

As for your intial statement to think with your head instead of heart. Maybe I am thinking with my emotions. But the feeling that we should play caretaker to other species...to live up to the compassion and intelligence we were lucky to get in the evolutionary process is something I can't reason against.

First of all, thank you so so much for taking a logical stand on a subject that drives people insane and makes them say totally idiotic things because they're too busy dealing with their feelings to make sense.

Yes, I completely agree that dogs first and foremost were tools. If dogs were not useful, then humans would not have bothered domesticating them. However, they have grown so far from their original purposes that they are now completely useless in the practical sense. For example, Animal rights group try to ban the use of hunting dogs for what they were bred to do: hunt. While several breeds are still utilized, such as water rescue dogs and airport sniffer dogs, most now serve as companions to humans.

However, many shelter dogs are so emotionally/behaviorally damaged from abuse and/or abandonment that they can not become pets, and ferals are just so wild that the only thing shelters can do is neuter and release. Even if plenty of shelter dogs can make perfect pets, there are simply not enough households to take ALL of the unowned dogs running around. Some people have allergies, some people do not have room, some people just don't want any, etc. You can't force everyone to adopt a dog just to take care of the shelter population. While the no-kill shelters appeal to your sense of morality, they are just a giant bottomless pit of resources. In a fair and perfect world, these shelters would have enough money to keep all the dogs that can't be turned over for adoption, but this is obviously not the case.

All pets should be spayed and neutered, and it is best if the breeders themselves can do it before selling the dogs. Only several people should be given licenses to breed animals, and their output should be very strictly monitored and controlled. This is the heart of the problem, as there are too many breeders churning out dogs. Part of it is the demand for trendy mixed dogs liked labradoodles and puggles; potential owners themselves must also be educated in how they are actually contributing to the problem. No one side is completely guilty or completely innocent.

I believe extermination is a perfectly fine option, but to be used sparingly. Wherever appropriate, ferals, who absolutely cannot become pets, should first be spayed/neutered and released. If the population does not drop and the problem intensifies, then the dogs should be exterminated. For disowned or confiscated shelter dogs, the emotionally damaged that can't be reintroduced into a person's home should be put down, out of mercy and to make room for dogs that CAN be rehabilitated.

Pet-material animals should be given absolute top priority in shelters, but even then it would be noble but completely foolish to keep these animals in shelters forever. There should be a grace period of perhaps several months, before the animals are exterminated.

People have to be logical and realistic about animals, but they must still show compassion and understanding that it was humans that created the problem.

P.S. I believe the coyotes in my area take care of the problem of wandering strays. Gruesome, but nature itself manages it that way.

Yeah, we should do the same with people that can't work. I mean, if they just waste our tax money on drugs and alcohol, why keep them around?

"Tax the living hell out of any service or product that has anything to do with domestic pet species"

So... food doesn't already cost enough? Vet bills aren't enough already? This is taking a step back in time, where only royalty could have dogs.

I think these "solutions" are heartless and I would not support them. All animals are living, breathing creatures. It's honestly a bit like an animal Holocaust.

Breeding need to be controlled, though. That is the ONLY thing that needs to be controlled. Not whether or not a dog can find a responsible home.

Around here, most people get their animals fixed, except for those who buy a dog with dollar signs in their eyes. So far it's doing okay. There's more no-kill shelters around here than kill shelters now, because more people are choosing to adopt. And a lot of those people do sports with their dogs, and turn them into working dogs. So it's not like the dogs are useless... every dog has potential if given the right owner.

gotta agree with college_girl here and more bored collie and rayven and poppie and ms manners and cjrossi and uhave2be and anne b (most of all anne b) and rotts.

ADD: Why start at the places that RESCUE the dogs? Why not start out where the dogs are BORN?! That's punishing the rescues for caring about a dog and trying to save it's life and give it a new home.

Punish the idiots who PUT the dogs there.

The amount of dogs that would be alive, living in horrid, inhumane environments would be absurd. It is essential to euthanize unclaimed dogs. It's a horrible, atrocious reality, but life is exactly that. If irresponsible people would stop purchasing BYB unhealthy swine pups the over-population would significantly be effected positively. Same goes for irresponsible, greedy filth of society using their dogs as ATM machines. If they want to make money, be like the rest of us and go to work Mon-Fri 9-5. Not a hard concept.

The issue is how the euthanization is swept under the rug. How many politicians and government representatives have publicly voiced a better solution, or even acknowledged to the general public this ACTUALLY happens? Minimal media coverage is the worst enemy of the over-population of pets. Even the foundations for animal cruelty don't highlight the massive number of euthanized dogs, cats, rodents, and birds that happen every day.