I'm sure many thread have been opened here, as in every forum on the internet, about this problem. So I want to propose a solution. It may sound drastic and it probably is, but it is less drastic that plain prohibiting people form having them altogether. Maybe we can include or exclude points to make it better. So here it is: 1. Only registered breeders can have fertile dogs. They will breed the dogs according to whatever breeding standards are specified. No more mongrels. No more unwanted litters being thrown in the street. 2. Anyone is allowed to buy a dog, or a number of dogs, based on their income. Dogs that are sold to non breeders have to be sterilized. I think that this measure alone would significantly lower the number of dogs out there, specially unwanted ones. A lot of people are very irresponsible with their dogs' fertile cycles and just end up having all sorts of mixed races and unwanted puppies that later grow up and are not so cute anymore and end up spending most of their lives in shelters or in the street. Discuss.
I have a few points to add: - There should be a limit to the number of registered breeders. - The registered breeders should be checked upon randomly to see if they are doing they job according to the regulations. - Owners should pay dog-tax to pay for whatever money the government spends in this system. - Dogs have to go for a checkup every 6 months or so. The owners will pay for this themselves. - All of the above (including your post) should be done with cats as well.
Mongrels are actually the most genetically healthy. We should ban all commercial breeders except those that breed for good behavioral traits in working dogs. No dog can be sold commercially as pets without the permission of a local shelter, so that any potential pets in the shelter can be given to good homes first.
the dog tax should be put in the dog's purchase value the registered breeders should also have a limited amount of fertile dogs, and a limited amount of puppies that they can keep fertile to sell to other breeders
That is not entirely true, it's a generalization. Many breeds are more likely to have genetic diseases because of the poor genes that get transferred in association with the characteristics the breeders are trying to preserve. But that doesn't mean that mongrels don't get those diseases too. And the whole point of regularizing this, is to make breeding more responsible, so the people who are allowed to breed the dogs will have to study the dogs blood line and family health background. I suppose we could ad that breeders can be allowed to cross their dogs and see what happens. Maybe we can add something about interbreeding. They have to be responsible for whatever comes out of these experiences though.
These extra expenses can discourage people from having dogs, so it's good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think we should just make them a menu item in Chinese restaurants, that would be the fastest solution...
Very impractical to implement. How could you ever have enough people to oversee that only what and who you want to breed dogs are doing so ? Who are going to be watching out for the illegal breeders like there are now, thousands of them, and they can't be found either. Who is going to police everything to be certain everyone has a dog as you want bred? :shrug:
Well... I think it has to start somewhere. And it can start by demanding that all breeders sterilize the puppies before selling them. I think that most breeders would comply with this, because: 1. it makes their business stronger, since they will be the only providers, other than shelters. 2. they are usually the people who are the most anal about having a responsible dog owner, and about responsibly breeding dogs. Starting there, it will be easier to control the other problems, since people are going to be buying sterile dogs and it's impossible to get unwanted litters from them. As long as there is no expectation from the buyer that he will have a fertile dog, even illegal breeders would take benefit from sterilizing the poppies, because of reason 1.
The "dog problem" pales in comparison to the human problem, so I think we should look in our own backyard (but not at the dogs) before we go suggesting other species should be desexed. Desexing dogs is a serious life altering procedure, it completely changes a male dog into a fat retarded pussy that might as well not exist at all. You'll be prying my dog's balls from my cold dead hands!
While it is tru that Mongrels are the healthiest; I think it a bit nanny-state-ish to have laws preventing law abiding people from owning dogs of their choosing. ~String
I think the whole breeder culture has to change. They breed for looks alone, and that's not how dog breeds originally developed.
Very true, but I tend to look at laws and regulations as having to do with the good order of the state, and breeding dogs, even poorly, does not harm the good order of the state. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment. I can't stand the fact that the English bull dog (for example) is nothing more than a severely deformed dog with little more than the canine equivalent of dwarfism. The deformities have been "captured" and inbred. It's odd, bordering on disgusting. But it shouldn't be illegal. As long as the animal's treated ethically when alive, that's the best that can be hoped for. If we start regulating dogs, then what next? Cows? Goats? Hogs? All of which are grossly divergent from their original form (almost, in some cases, to the point of total disfunctionality). ~String
not true, there is a huge branch of breeding dedicated to work dogs, like shepherds and the likes... they are breeded for strenght, endurance and temper
nono, you are missing the point I'm proposing that dogs get regulated because they are a problem. Cows, goats and hogs, as they are, are not a problem, they are an asset to society. Dogs cause millions of dollars of health care costs every year. And most dogs out there don't really serve a purpose, they are very futile possessions. The burned ins unjustified.
