Cities cannot enforce the current animal control laws in force---and you want to add more?

My city has a law requiring unneutered animals(dogs/cats) to be registered and a $100 licensing fee charged on top of the normal license fee. I have lived in this city for over 40 years, had licensed dogs for most of that time---and never heard of that law until I licensed ny dogs upon moving. Reason? It is generally unenforceable and so was never pushed. Since I am honest---and have a trained male unneutered guard dog---I applied for the extra license. If an owner has three or more complaints, they are refused the extra license. Prove that in a court of law---if an owner wishes to dodge the law.

I agree with your outrage---I am part of a neighborhood watch group which also includes animal cruelty on our list of things to keep an eye out for---but making more laws that cannot be enforced is not helpful.

Declawing cats is illegal in most of the world. So is ear cropping on dogs. It is too bad they aren't illegal here.

I agree, and all else fails if need, be a painless injection and a enturnial sleep are better then a lifetime of suffering.

Though dogs ears that are cropped may be less prone to getting ear infections because they no longer hang down trapping water,dirt/ect maybe it does benefit in some way?

Because I'm disabled I will be moving into a group home in about 5+ years or so- to protect my cats from de clawing, abandonment at a shelter because of some buddies allergies and the people from getting bit/scratched I'm just going to leave them with my parents and visit on weekends.

"making more laws that cannot be enforced is not helpful"

agree 100%

Agree but its better then doing nothing at all.

Rather than 'do nothing' or pass new laws, enforcing current laws would do a very good job of solution solving.

For instance, instead of complaining about a pet problem to the local animal control---who are most always overworked/understaffed/underfunded----try reporting to the local codes enforcement office---(Not the building codes folks)---the property codes folks. They often have similar pet codes to enforce.

Our new Mayor instituted a 311 phone number---anyone can call and make a comment/complaint and get an answer.

Complain/report to Health and Welfare folks.

Petition drive for a solution.

Sitting in your house complaining on a computer does nothing other than raise one's blood pressure.

There is absolutely NO health benefit to cropping ears. If there were, then Cocker Spaniels and Labs would all have cropped ears. It's just another stupid human trick, and does just as much good for the animal as declawing. Same with tail docking, just another stupid human trick.

Why should a vet have to pay for cat homelessness by discounting MAJOR SURGERY so idiots who can't afford pets get a free ride? I paid over $100,000 to go to veterinary school and believe me, I can't afford to work for free. Why should I? Do human doctors work for free? Heck no! I had to work through the SAME training as a human doctor, except, hello, I work on EVERY SINGLE SPECIES except human, so much MORE to learn! My technicians expect to get paid, I have to pay to keep the surgery lights on, for all the monitoring equipment, for the space to house the cage the animal recovers in, the receptionists to answer phones and schedule appointments, heating bills, A/C, etc. How am I supposed to pay for all that if I am working for free? It's the most ridiculous request I've ever heard.

Amen Meghane....very well said.Thank you.

Shelley

I didn't know that about cropping ears-I thought that any return to "wolf type" was good
Cockers don't exactly have " wolf type ears"

meghane - am I correct that the AVMA recently passed a resolution stating that they do not approve ear cropping and tail docking? (I may not have the correct terms here, I don't know if "resolution" is correct, and I don't know how strongly worded it is). Does this mean that vets will NOT do it or will strongly advise against it or what?

There has been some heated debate about this topic in our kennel club. Some of those with breeds that traditionally crop and/or dock can come up with many arguments as to why. I personally don't agree with any of them, but they do feel very strongly. For example, those with "guard" dogs - german shepherds for example - claim that the original purpose of cropping ears was so the dogs could hear better. They cite that prey animals tend to have upright and open ears that they can swivel to catch small sounds. I do not know of any studies showing this is true, but then I haven't looked either.

Regardless, even if it is true, it is a rare case now in which the dog is actually used for its original purpose, so these defenses run thin. Those that breed and show however, argue that to "maintain the breed as it was originally intended".... I say baloney! Cropped ears are not a genetic characteristic, so we should be able to assess a dog's breed characteristics without cropping or docking.

Anyway, I sort of went on too long. Mostly though, if you could elaborate on the AVMA statement, meghane, I'd appreciate it.

I do not know of any studies showing this is true,
I should clarify. What I meant to say was that yes, prey animals have upright swively ears so the argument seems to make sense that cropping a dog's ears might lead to enhanced hearing. However, I don't know of any studies in which the hearing of cropped versus uncropped dogs was tested. Sorry if I confused people.

That argument for cropping really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when one considers that the German Shepherd Dog's original purpose was herding. Many dogs whose original purpose is/was guarding, such as the mastiffs and livestock proctection dogs, have longer ears that flop over. Ears may be cropped so that they would not be torn in a fight with a predator, but a cropped ear is not part of the breed standard.

People crop ears because they like the way it looks, period. Back in "the day", an natural Dobe or Dane just couldn't compete with cropped dogs - it wasn't the look judges wanted. There has been a movement away from this in recent years and I'd be happy to see all natural ears in the rings.

Tail docking is something I'm on the fence about. There's a argument that hunting dogs such as the German Short-haired Pointer and Cocker Spaniel have docked tails to prevent injury and matting. This does have some merit; however, why then do the English Pointer and the Setters have natural tails?? It's just as hard to remove burrs from a Setter or Retriever's tail as it is to remove them from a Spaniel. I hunt and actually find that the natural tail makes the dog easier to spot in tall brush and the short hair of either Pointer makes matting a non-issue. I'm on the fence because long, thin, whippy tails are easy to injure. I realize this is a poor example, since the standard doesn't call for docking, but my Dane has two lumps of scar tissue near the tip of her tail that routinely break open because she beats her tail off walls, fences, etc. I pad the end of the tail with socks to protect it while it heals, but i would understand why someone owning a dog with such a tail would elect to dock. Again, though, docking for this reason is done on a individual as-needed basis and not routinely as a breed standard and so would be supported by the AVMA.

The AVMA position statement does not mention dewclaws. I do remove dewclaws on my dogs. I'm well aware that foxes and wolves ahve dewclaws and are subject to the same potention for injury (the usual arguement against dewclaw removal)I've had too many rip them off and prefer to have it done as a routine matter rather than as an emergency procedure.

The AVMA position statement was issued in November 2008 and states "The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards." The CEO of the AVMA went a little further and stated ""For many years the AVMA has acknowledged that ear cropping and tail docking of dogs for cosmetic purposes are not medically indicated nor of benefit to our canine patients. If it can be responsibly demonstrated that the purpose of performing the procedure is to protect the health and welfare of the dog, then of course the association would support the appropriate surgery." Thus far, the AKC has responded with "We recognize ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries. These breed characteristics are procedures performed to insure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with Homeland Security, serve in the U.S. Military and at Police Departments protecting tens of thousands of communities throughout our nation as well as competing in the field.
Mislabeling these procedures as "cosmetic" is a severe mischaracterization that connotes a lack of respect and knowledge of history and the function of purebred dogs. Breed standards are established and maintained by AKC Parent Clubs (each of the 158 AKC registered breeds is stewarded by a breed-specific Parent Club) keeping foremost in mind the welfare of the breed and the function it was bred to perform."

Breed clubs continue to argue.