Dog Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dont make laws relating to dog ownership tougher.

5K views 56 replies 10 participants last post by  Esme 
#1 ·
I have recently read that laws relating to dog ownership are going to become tougher. I understand that owners need to be checked before purchasing a dog from a dog shelter/a breeder. However, by making the process even longer is an ABSOLUTE waste of funding to shelters! Most shelters dont receive government funding and reli entirely on donations, so money is probably hard to come by in the first place. If the process became longer they would spend more money on documents when they could be spending money making the shelter bigger. There is only a small amount of space in shelters and so many dogs have to be put down because there just isn't room for them!

By making dog ownership laws tougher we are contradicting ourselves as dog lovers, because a DOG LOVER would not let a dog be put down!

Also, as a retired dog breeder, I believe that by making the process longer and harder, it may be that potential owners just cant be doing with it. Then you're left with a litter of 8 who have nowhere to go. This is not in the dogs best interest whatsoever! I couldn't possibly look after 8 GROWN DOGS
 
#3 ·
Honestly? I think the tougher laws are a good idea as long as they're universally enforced to make sure its not just the reputable breeders and shelters that are following them. The main reason why the dog overpopulation issue is so large right now is because of so many people impulse buying dogs and then discarding them when they're too much trouble or are no longer the "flavor of the month". If people actually have to stop and think about what they're doing and live with the consequences (not just make the dog live or die with the consequences) of a poor decision then the demand for dogs will go down. When the demand goes down, the people who just breed dogs for fun, money, etc (in other words, breeders who aren't doing it to better the breed) will stop breeding because its just not worth it anymore, which causes the supply to decrease.

On a side note, what do you do as a breeder when you have a litter of 8 puppies that you have no buyers for? Are you saying you actually give all those puppies to the shelter when they're full grown? I have no experience with breeders, but I would HOPE that breeders don't breed unless they have some people in line for the puppies... I can understand if there's some extras that aren't spoken for at birth due to the variable litter size, but all 8? And even if you do have some extras, I would still hope that no responsible breeder would really send their puppies to the shelter...
 
#5 ·
Actually I've heard this recently aswell. I agree, with the rising numbers of dogs in shelters, making it tougher to own a dog is just going to make it worse. The fact that any dogs at all are put down just because there isn't enough space is just such a horrible thing to be aware of - and the signs they take to indicate a dog is too dangerous to rehome seem to be getting so much broader that it just seems like they need an excuse to do it. Of course there is the risk of people not realising how hard it is to have a dog but then isn't it worth it just for the number of dogs who will find a home. Besides, making it harder to get dogs just makes people get the most readily available solution and get a dog off a friend, and that can be both unreliable and dangerous
 
#12 ·
Hm. I don't really see the benefit of competency tests, but I do agree that some regulation is good. Too much, and it defeats the purpose of dog adoption (i.e. more euthanizations). Do you know if legislation ever went through in the UK? Those articles are a year old.
 
#16 ·
Do you know if legislation ever went through in the UK?

Well we've had a change of government so I think they were put on the backburner for a while, but since I saw it on BBC a bit more recently it may either be coming into action soon or being brought back into debate.

I just don't see how putting someone through a test is going to be anywhere near effective enough to either bring attacks by dogs down because they have more control over them, or stop people who are unfit to treat a dog properly from getting one, and after seeing a dog put down by a vet recently on Panorama so easily I think we should be doing more to make sure the dogs at least get a chance in a new home before they're euthanazed
 
#20 ·
I can't really contribute much else to the convo. The UK is much different from the US in regards to dogs, from what I understand. We have a way bigger overpopulation problem vs. abuse, I think, just from the bit I've read on here. I'm making an uneducated guess, so feel free to correct me. The UK is very theoretical and mysterious in my mind... ;)
 
#21 ·
We have a way bigger overpopulation problem vs. abuse
Didn't quite understand that. You mean the problem over there is more overpopulation of dogs than abuse of dogs right? But, if so, surely overpopulation can LEAD to dog abuse, because the more dogs there are the less they're wanted, and then people sometimes just abandon dogs when they no longer want them, or just keep them and treat them bad enough anyone would wish they DID abandon them. Thing is I think that's the way this is going if it does come in as law. First it'll be overpopulation because less are adopting from the shelters, and then the maltreatment will follow
 
#22 ·
Am I missing something here? No one has said what they are doing to make it harder to adopt a dog.
 
#24 ·
No, it was just proposed legislation in the UK. Nothing has actually happened to make it harder.

This may be wrong and I don't work with shelters, but I consider dropping your dog off at the pound or abandoning them different than actual physical abuse or neglect. Abandonment leads to higher euthanization. Abuse leads to...??? People having their dogs taken away? I don't know.
 
#25 ·
I dont see what the objection is to the "test" ...pretty much all shelter and rescues have screening questionaires that are essentially a dog owner "test" you can fail...
True. I was thinking like a 50 question test and an essay. :p That's where my brain went.
 
#27 ·
I do not see what a test has to do with the amount of dogs being relinquished to shelters.....

Are you saying existing dogs would be removed from homes if the owner "fails" the test?
Posted via Mobile Device
No I'm not saying a test would directly mean more dogs go into shelters, more that more dogs will STAY in them, because it will be harder for people to pass the test. And, yeah I know there are already tests in place, but I just on't see that making those tests harder is either effective or a good idea at all, because shelters are already finding it hard to cope, they need to have the dogs taken off their hands so they don't need to put them down. Some have a 'never put a healthy dog down' policy, but there are plenty that don't, because they can only care for a select number of dogs
 
#28 ·
Have you seen the "test" text? Honestly if its not a hard test then i dont think denying the people who fail a dog would be a bad idea... I dont feel adoption is better than death in all cases.... And i am very pro rescue...

I guess my point is this "test" may be a simple questionaire but simply standardized for the whole country. I think its being judged as an impossible to pass exam and it likely does not even exist....
Posted via Mobile Device



 
#29 ·
Have you seen the "test" text? Honestly if its not a hard test then i dont think denying the people who fail a dog would be a bad idea... I dont feel adoption is better than death in all cases.... And i am very pro rescue...

I guess my point is this "test" may be a simple questionaire but simply standardized for the whole country. I think its being judged as an impossible to pass exam and it likely does not even exist....
Posted via Mobile Device
Ding Ding Ding, Tell her what she's won! :)
 
#31 ·
#32 ·
LOL. Well, the other problem with the US that I don't know if the UK has is that not everyone here is competent in English or can take tests well in general. So now we are excluding people based on edumacation.

I'm also really tired and not following this thread too well. I think maybe we're all in agreement, but I can't really tell.

I'LL JUST YELL AT YOU ALL TO GET MY POINT ACROSS. I'm not sure what that is...
 
#34 ·
The first article linked to said:

The confidential document stated that there had been "suggestions for a competency test for all or some dog owners, akin to the driving theory test".



However, the paper also warned that the cost of establishing such a scheme was "likely to be prohibitive".

and:


how "competency" would be determined – a question which the Defra paper conceded was difficult to answer.

I think the dog owners of the UK can feel confident that nothing is going to change too soon....
 
#37 ·
I imagine it would be something like really scrutinising things like financial situation and criminal record or other circumstances of the owner, but that's what disturbs me. It's quite well known that, over here at least, I couldn't speak for the US, some of the best looked after dogs are the compainions of the homeless, because those dogs are their only friends, they look after them like they were children, so scrutinising financial situations would be a bit misguided.
Really? It actually breaks my heart when I see the homeless having dogs especially puppies bc they cannot afford to medically care for their dogs, trust me I have seen it; Parvo, piometra, HBC injuries.

I am of the belief that you need to have a certain income before considering an animal...
Ditto ditto ditto. I WISH they really would look at the income of homes. Do you know how many people come on here and have dogs with severe medical issues that they want diagnosed on here bc they cannot afford to take them to the vet?
 
#38 ·
Ditto ditto ditto. I WISH they really would look at the income of homes. Do you know how many people come on here and have dogs with severe medical issues that they want diagnosed on here bc they cannot afford to take them to the vet?
if I had a nickel....



while I am sure there are homeless people that exist that take care of their dogs... please lets not romanticize it...the great majority of dogs owned by unemployed or homeless people likely do not get the medical care or the quality food they deserve...



 
#39 ·
while I am sure there are homeless people that exist that take care of their dogs... please lets not romanticize it...the great majority of dogs owned by unemployed or homeless people likely do not get the medical care or the quality food they deserve...
This! I have taken zip lock bags of dog food to homeless people for their dogs but I can't do it everyday....

Anywho, I wonder why it is that breeders seem to discuss this the most (I may have read it wrong but didn't Criosphynx say the majority of people discussing this are breeders?) So what is this law going to put towards breeders?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top