BSL do you agree?

[StormWizard212]

It has nothing to do with me caring, it's about the law caring.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you didn't care if dogs were attacked. My bad!

 

And re: your mention of property, I think it's ridiculous that the law sees pets as objects rather than actual creatures with feelings just like us. When I went to the police after my dog was stolen, I was faced with a heap of, "well just buy a new one, genius!" and other ignorant remarks like that.

 

Ironically, the fact that the law saw him as an object was how we were able to get him back in the end, since they seized him as 'evidence of stolen property'.

 

But to pull things back to the BSL, I do think in theory it's not a bad idea, but I don't think it's been approached well. Like someone said, certain breeds of dogs by nature are prone to certain ways of behaving and if there was something that helped people learn how to keep your own breed safe (since it's not going to be the same for every breed) then that would be great.

[Syaoransbear]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you didn't care if dogs were attacked. My bad!

 

And re: your mention of property, I think it's ridiculous that the law sees pets as objects rather than actual creatures with feelings just like us. When I went to the police after my dog was stolen, I was faced with a heap of, "well just buy a new one, genius!" and other ignorant remarks like that.

 

Ironically, the fact that the law saw him as an object was how we were able to get him back in the end, since they seized him as 'evidence of stolen property'.

 

But to pull things back to the BSL, I do think in theory it's not a bad idea, but I don't think it's been approached well. Like someone said, certain breeds of dogs by nature are prone to certain ways of behaving and if there was something that helped people learn how to keep your own breed safe (since it's not going to be the same for every breed) then that would be great.

I just can't really agree with BSL because I don't believe any breed has the majority or even a large portion of its members prone to unprovoked human aggression. I think human aggression is the product of bad breeding or bad genetics, or bad genetics and bad raising. Even breeders who do so much to try and guarantee an animal that will turn out with a certain temperament have animals that are genetic flukes and inherited all the wrong traits. Those flukes or those who were bred with bad intentions shouldn't determine the fate of an entire breed, especially when a huge majority of the rest of the breed is free from human aggression.

 

It is kind of a good and bad thing the way the law handles animals as property. On one hand, it isn't taken seriously if a beloved pet and a family member is killed or stolen, like in your case. But on the other hand, if animals were viewed as higher beings with rights, pet owners might suffer from some very difficult or ridiculous laws trying to limit their method of pet raising or keeping. And I can't imagine what it would be like for livestock owners.

[TikindiDragon]

And re: your mention of property, I think it's ridiculous that the law sees pets as objects rather than actual creatures with feelings just like us.

You say that, and I find it quite funny that legislation in the US seems to think cat = dog. Or at least cats = every bit as trainable and controlable as dogs. I'm pretty sure anyone that's ever owned a cat would tell you they are very different animals, yet the same expectations are placed on cat owners that are placed on dog owners. Thankfully where I live in the UK they recognse that a cat is broadly it's own animal.

 

Anyway, back to BSL. I should, at this point, make it clear that I don't disagree with across the board legislation on dog owners/ownership. I just disagree with it being targeted at specific breeds. Ideally I'd like to see a situation where it is a legal requirement for all dogs to be registered, liscenced and micropchipped (and subject to seizure if they have not been once they're over 6 months). I'd also like to see a legal requirement for puppies to attend socialisation and obidience classes, and (possibly most controversially) I'd like to see a legal requirement for all dogs not owned by registered breeders to be spayed/neutered.

 

There's this one woman, she's probably in her 30s or so, dotes on her pit and really does everything the way she should, but he's attacked mine a couple of times now

 

You actually said the problem right there in your post. Dotes. There's an unfortunate problem that the vast majority of poeple actually *don't* know the best way to train & live with digs, even if they have the best intentions in the world. Next time you go out count how many of the dogs you see on leads are walking infront of their owners - because every single one of those people is doing it wrong. They could be the nicest people on the planet - but they're not people I'd ever want to see owning an agressive dog.

[Syaoransbear]

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where it is a legal requirement for all dogs to be registered, liscenced and micropchipped (and subject to seizure if they have not been once they're over 6 months). I'd also like to see a legal requirement for puppies to attend socialisation and obidience classes, and (possibly most controversially) I'd like to see a legal requirement for all dogs not owned by registered breeders to be spayed/neutered.

I disagree with some of this. Microchips move, malfunction, and can even fall out. When my dumbass BIL let my dog loose and he was picked up by animal control, they couldn't even find his microchip with the scanner so they brought him to the pound. I found the microchip later when they gave me a scanner to scan him in case it fell out, but it took about 5 minutes of scanning over and over around his shoulders. I think most shelter employees would assume he didn't have a microchip instead of looking as hard as I did.

 

And they still don't know if microchips are completely safe yet. They have caused cancer in laboratory animals and pets. I think they should be completely safe before the government starts requiring them, especially since the only reason to have them would be so it's easier to find your dog, and not because it provides any health benefit to the dog or any safety benefit to people(like the rabies vaccine).

 

There are great risks associated with spaying and neutering your dog, and I don't feel like the government is in any place to determine that a dog should be forced to undergo a major surgery that occasionally results in death, often results in incontinence, and increases the risk of many cancers in male dogs who don't get any health benefits from neutering, but get numerous health issues from it, for the sole reason of preventing animals from getting loose and mating. To do that, all an owner has to do is provide proper containment, not surgery. Spaying and neutering is definitely something the owner should research and make an informed decision by themselves. Plus the government would for sure make people spay and neuter before the dog is fully matured(2-3 years), and I don't agree with that at all because I don't believe that removing necessary hormones for growth from a dog that is still growing is healthy at all.

 

I like your idea for classes because I think education is the key, but I think they should make it harder to get animals, not make it harder to keep animals. And certainly not laws forcing people to put their animals through major surgery when they are perfectly capable of containing their animal. If all the wolfdog people I know are able to keep their wolfdogs from escaping, normal dog owners are more than capable of doing it too.

 

I don't understand why you have a different view when it comes to cats. Isn't an overpopulation of cats an issue? We certainly have about 10 cats for every stray dog at our spca. The dogs don't usually get euthanized unless they can't be rehomed for behavior issues, but there are so many cats that they euthanize because they run out of room.

 

on topic:

 

Our city keeps trying to pass BSL and I'm glad it's meeting such resistance. BSL won't(and doesn't) stop at just pitbulls, they'll start coming after all large breed dogs, so it needs to be stopped by more than just pitbull owners.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[TikindiDragon]

I disagree with some of this. Microchips move, malfunction, and can even fall out. When my dumbass BIL let my dog loose and he was picked up by animal control, they couldn't even find his microchip with the scanner so they brought him to the pound. I found the microchip later when they gave me a scanner to scan him in case it fell out, but it took about 5 minutes of scanning over and over around his shoulders. I think most shelter employees would assume he didn't have a microchip instead of looking as hard as I did.

 

And they still don't know if microchips are completely safe yet. They have caused cancer in laboratory animals and pets. I think they should be completely safe before the government starts requiring them, especially since the only reason to have them would be so it's easier to find your dog, and not because it provides any health benefit to the dog or any safety benefit to people(like the rabies vaccine).

 

There are great risks associated with spaying and neutering your dog, and I don't feel like the government is in any place to determine that a dog should be forced to undergo a major surgery that occasionally results in death, often results in incontinence, and increases the risk of many cancers in male dogs who don't get any health benefits from neutering, but get numerous health issues from it, for the sole reason of preventing animals from getting loose and mating. To do that, all an owner has to do is provide proper containment, not surgery. Spaying and neutering is definitely something the owner should research and make an informed decision by themselves. Plus the government would for sure make people spay and neuter before the dog is fully matured(2-3 years), and I don't agree with that at all because I don't believe that removing necessary hormones for growth from a dog that is still growing is healthy at all.

 

I like your idea for classes because I think education is the key, but I think they should make it harder to get animals, not make it harder to keep animals. And certainly not laws forcing people to put their animals through major surgery when they are perfectly capable of containing their animal. If all the wolfdog people I know are able to keep their wolfdogs from escaping, normal dog owners are more than capable of doing it too.

 

I don't understand why you have a different view when it comes to cats. Isn't an overpopulation of cats an issue? We certainly have about 10 cats for every stray dog at our spca. The dogs don't usually get euthanized unless they can't be rehomed for behavior issues, but there are so many cats that they euthanize because they run out of room.

 

on topic:

 

Our city keeps trying to pass BSL and I'm glad it's meeting such resistance. BSL won't(and doesn't) stop at just pitbulls, they'll start coming after all large breed dogs, so it needs to be stopped by more than just pitbull owners.

Oh, I think cats should also be required to be spayed/neutered. There's no inconsistency on that front. Frankly with the number of animals I've worked with/owned over the years I'd advocate an early (around 6 months) spay/neuter for *all* of them.

 

I find it quite funny that a lot of people in the dog world get massively up in arms about the idea of neutering their dogs (and, yes, I include all the scare stories about damaging their health in that) when no one bats an eye at gelding horses or neutering male cats. Why? Because Stallions are hard to control, and male cat urine stinks. It's been done for many, many years, and the risks are low. Yes, even with dogs. The risks to an animal from leaving it entire are actually higher than those from spaying/neutering it (and, no, neutering a male dog is not a major surgery). Saying "There are great risks associated with spaying and neutering" is misleading and, frankly, I think harmful. The vast majority of vets will recomment a spay/neuter between the ages of 5 and 7 months.

 

Also neutering is *not* for the sole reason of preventing it breeding. It's been proven, time and time again, that early neutering in male dogs *reduces* behavioural problems considerably. Why do you suppose it's done to horses? Because the traits of a fully adult male are undesireable in a pet animal. Leave the neutering til they're 3 and you lose all of that - the animal has already become a fully adult male and a lot of unwanted behaviours will start to develop. Your belief about not removing those hormones simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny - animals have been being neutered before they are fully mature for millenia (and, yes, I really do mean that - horses have been being gelded before they were a year old since before the birth of Christ).

 

And re: Microchips I am pleased to say the UK Government *has* just made them a legal requirement. And, yes, the sole reason for having them is tracing the animals. A mandatory ear tattoo would fulfil the same purpose. Given the increasing number of problem dogs out there I think a mandatory way to trace animals is vital.

[esnym]

Pitbulls terrify me. I've been attacked by one when I was younger - there was a guy in the neighborhood who had two that were half wild and he just let them run loose all over the place. They were quite aggressive towards other animals and people, and since then I've been EXTREMELY wary of pitties.

 

But... I still don't support BSL. My personal issue with a certain breed shouldn't be a reason to limit someone else's freedom in terms of owning a pet. What we need is a better system to take care of our animals to make sure they are not abused or undertrained. Genetics make a difference in dog behavior, but people can still condition it. Most just don't choose to.

 

On that not, I now own an elderly greyhound female. She is the nicest thing in the world - to humans. She walks well on leash, sits, stays, and even scent-tracks a little. But I muzzle her whenever I take her for a walk, because she will chase anything smaller than her (including dogs, yes) and act very dominant towards other dogs, sometimes starting a fight. She's never harmed anything, but I don't want her to get put down if she gets her teeth into someone's Pomeranian.

 

It should really be that simple. People knnowing their dogs and acting accordingly. Or just using muzzles when outside in the dog park or on a walk. There would be zero problem with biting if that happened, it isn't cruel to the animal unless the muzzle is ill fitting or never gets taken off. Problem solved.

Edited February 7, 2013 by esnym

[Classycal]

I think the whole idea of BSL is so stupid and so sad. Right now in the city of Denver, if you own a Pitbull, they can come into your home and put it down even if there was no history of violence. People are to blame for dogs gone bad. Dogs are loving and kind and really are mans' best friend. I've owned a Pitbull mix, and Golden Retriever/Chow mix, and a Keeshond and they were all sweet dogs. I especially can't understand a Keeshond being on the list because they have got to be the sweetest breed around - but they do look somewhat like a wolf and that's probably where the problem is. That's my personal experience, but for so many dogs on the list, I've never heard of any violence. It's just a sad, sad thing. (My avatar at the time of this posting is a Keeshond.)

[Mommy_Kitty]

It is not the dogs that shuld be put up for ban or put down, it shuld be the owners of those dogs, no dog in fact no animal is born to be viciouse, dangerouse and agresive, they are taught to be all that by theyr parents or owners. But no mather how well trained a dog is it shuld not be left alone with litle kids becouse is is still only an animal, and litle kids are sometimes "stupid" as they still dont know that there are some things you cant to to a dog or other animal, at some point thay will have it to much and react in an unpredicted way. But that does not make it a dangerouse animal.

[Syaoransbear]

Oh, I think cats should also be required to be spayed/neutered. There's no inconsistency on that front. Frankly with the number of animals I've worked with/owned over the years I'd advocate an early (around 6 months)  spay/neuter for *all* of them.

 

I find it quite funny that a lot of people in the dog world get massively up in arms about the idea of neutering their dogs (and, yes, I include all the scare stories about damaging their health in that) when no one bats an eye at gelding horses or neutering male cats. Why? Because Stallions are hard to control, and male cat urine stinks. It's been done for many, many years, and the risks are low. Yes, even with dogs. The risks to an animal from leaving it entire are actually higher than those from spaying/neutering it (and, no, neutering a male dog is not a major surgery). Saying "There are great risks associated with spaying and neutering" is misleading and, frankly, I think harmful. The vast majority of vets will recomment a spay/neuter between the ages of 5 and 7 months.

 

Also neutering is *not* for the sole reason of preventing it breeding. It's been proven, time and time again, that early neutering in male dogs *reduces* behavioural problems considerably. Why do you suppose it's done to horses? Because the traits of a fully adult male are undesireable in a pet animal. Leave the neutering til they're 3 and you lose all of that - the animal has already become a fully adult male and a lot of unwanted behaviours will start to develop. Your belief about not removing those hormones simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny - animals have been being neutered before they are fully mature for millenia (and, yes, I really do mean that - horses have been being gelded before they were a year old since before the birth of Christ).

 

And re: Microchips I am pleased to say the UK Government *has* just made them a legal requirement. And, yes, the sole reason for having them is tracing the animals. A mandatory ear tattoo would fulfil the same purpose. Given the increasing number of problem dogs out there I think a mandatory way to trace animals is vital.

I don't bat an eye about gelding horses because I don't own a horse. And I've only lived with cats, I've never owned them. My only experience with male cats is my MIL's. My MIL just gave away her male, neutered cat because he would not stop marking. He peed all over every male person's clothes and beds in her house. Now he's living on a farm.

 

Behavioral problems from sexual maturity can easily be solved with training, that's how the conformation people do it. And there are studies done that say neutered dogs have more issues with aggression than intact dogs. And some dogs still present unwanted sexual behaviors even when neutered. Heck, the female I'm fostering marks indoors and outdoors like crazy, and she's spayed.

 

And the risks for neutering a dog are higher than leaving them intact. The only health benefit they gain is they can't get testicular cancer which is a risk that was already very low. Neutering increases bone cancer and prostate cancer.

 

The vast majority of vets will also recommend purina and science diet as food. In the dog world it's pretty well known that you shouldn't neuter a dog until they are fully matured otherwise the growth plates are slow to close and some believe that mentally they are slower to mature. Some people spay before 2 years because the benefits of an early spay are worth it to them, but now they have found in female rottweilers spaying early can decrease the dog's lifespan by 30%. That's a lot of years.

 

It is not the dogs that shuld be put up for ban or put down, it shuld be the owners of those dogs, no dog in fact no animal is born to be viciouse, dangerouse and agresive, they are taught to be all that by theyr parents or owners.

That's actually false. There are dogs that are truly born aggressive. These dogs have something genetically wrong with them, and they are usually put down. On a german shepherd forum I go to, one lady got a puppy that would have instances of purely unprovoked aggression. No matter what they did, nothing helped, and they had to put it down. It turned out that nearly the entire litter had to be euthanized for aggression problems.

 

Although it's very rare, some dogs even suffer from a problem called Rage Syndrome where they have a type of seizure that causes them to very randomly viciously attack the closest thing to them. If it's a shadow dog like a german shepherd, it's usually the owner that gets attacked. This can be managed with medication, but you won't know your dog has this problem until the first attack. Genetics are extremely important.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[TikindiDragon]

I don't bat an eye about gelding horses because I don't own a horse. And I've only lived with cats, I've never owned them. My only experience with male cats is my MIL's. My MIL just gave away her male, neutered cat because he would not stop marking. He peed all over every male person's clothes and beds in her house. Now he's living on a farm.

 

Behavioral problems from sexual maturity can easily be solved with training, that's how the conformation people do it. And there are studies done that say neutered dogs have more issues with aggression than intact dogs. And some dogs still present unwanted sexual behaviors even when neutered. Heck, the female I'm fostering marks indoors and outdoors like crazy, and she's spayed.

 

And the risks for neutering a dog are higher than leaving them intact. The only health benefit they gain is they can't get testicular cancer which is a risk that was already very low. Neutering increases bone cancer and prostate cancer.

 

The vast majority of vets will also recommend purina and science diet as food. In the dog world it's pretty well known that you shouldn't neuter a dog until they are fully matured otherwise the growth plates are slow to close and some believe that mentally they are slower to mature. Some people spay before 2 years because the benefits of an early spay are worth it to them, but now they have found in female rottweilers spaying early can decrease the dog's lifespan by 30%. That's a lot of years.

That's people in the dog world advocating these things. Meaning the people that breed and show. They've got a vested interest in keeping dgos entire. If you look *outside* of the show/breeding world you'll find a lot of poeple with a lot of dogs that have been neutered at 6 month that haven't had anything even faintly resembling a problem. The statistics back that up - percentage-wise the number of dogs suffering from these problems are very, very low. We're talking something that's akin to eating red meat increasing certain kinds of cancer, the risk is so low anyway that it doesn't really come across as a factor.

 

As I said before - neutering once an animal is fully mature won't stop it displaying mature behaviours. You neuter a male cat at 3, he's going to spray anyway. Cats also spray when they are stressed, and it's not always obvious *why* a cat may be stressed (although keeping them in indoor-only and/or multi-cat households increases that dramatically). You neuter a male dog *after* he's started humping then he's not going to magically stop - because he's already learnt the behaviour.

 

It's wieghing up the pros and cons. Yes, there may be a small increase in the risk factors of something that is rare to start with - but the improvement in behaviours that result from neutering is documented in a much, much larger percentage. It's a bit like saying no one should take penicillin because a small proportion of the population is allergic to it. Percentage wise neutering is of more benefit (in more ways than simple health!) to more dogs than not-neutering. There's a reason most cat breeders actually *require* kittens that are not on the active register to be spayed/neutered before a certain age.

 

I've had contact with a *lot* of animals over my life so far. Both in rescue (personally and as part of the family - my Mum was working in rescue from the time I was about 8), professionally (I have worked at a Thoroghbred Stud and in a Dressage barn), and in the breeding/showing world (Mum bred Siamese, I'm on a Club comittee and also Stewad at Shows. Heck, I'm Judging at one in a couple of weeks). I have *never* known an animal with problems due to a spay/neuter. What I *have* known are plenty of females that have suffered problems due to being left entire - Pyometra is nasty, potentially fatal, and occurs far more often than any of the conditions where spaying is seen to increase the risk factor (it's actually noted as being a 'common' condition in vetinary journals. That should tell you a lot about how much more frequently it occurs than do any type of cancer). What I *have* known are entire animals that have contracted infectious diseases due to fighting and mating - where a disease is spread by exchange of bodily fluids the chances of an unaltered animal getting it are much, much higher than those of altered animals.

 

That's actually false. There are dogs that are truly born aggressive. These dogs have something genetically wrong with them, and they are usually put down. On a german shepherd forum I go to, one lady got a puppy that would have instances of purely unprovoked aggression. No matter what they did, nothing helped, and they had to put it down. It turned out that nearly the entire litter had to be euthanized for aggression problems.

 

And both their mother and father should also have been spayed/neutered to remove them from the gene pool. Dogs carrying that sort of genetic risk should clearly not be bred to.

[Syaoransbear]

That's people in the dog world advocating these things. Meaning the people that breed and show. They've got a vested interest in keeping dgos entire. If you look *outside* of the show/breeding world you'll find a lot of poeple with a lot of dogs that have been neutered at 6 month that haven't had anything even faintly resembling a problem. The statistics back that up - percentage-wise the number of dogs suffering from these problems are very, very low. We're talking something that's akin to eating red meat increasing certain kinds of cancer, the risk is so low anyway that it doesn't really come across as a factor.

 

As I said before - neutering once an animal is fully mature won't stop it displaying mature behaviours. You neuter a male cat at 3, he's going to spray anyway. Cats also spray when they are stressed, and it's not always obvious *why* a cat may be stressed (although keeping them in indoor-only and/or multi-cat households increases that dramatically). You neuter a male dog *after* he's started humping then he's not going to magically stop - because he's already learnt the behaviour.

 

It's wieghing up the pros and cons. Yes, there may be a small increase in the risk factors of something that is rare to start with - but the improvement in behaviours that result from neutering is documented in a much, much larger percentage. It's a bit like saying no one should take penicillin because a small proportion of the population is allergic to it. Percentage wise neutering is of more benefit (in more ways than simple health!) to more dogs than not-neutering. There's a reason most cat breeders actually *require* kittens that are not on the active register to be spayed/neutered before a certain age.

 

I've had contact with a *lot* of animals over my life so far. Both in rescue (personally and as part of the family - my Mum was working in rescue from the time I was about 8), professionally (I have worked at a Thoroghbred Stud and in a Dressage barn), and in the breeding/showing world (Mum bred Siamese, I'm on a Club comittee and also Stewad at Shows. Heck, I'm Judging at one in a couple of weeks). I have *never* known an animal with problems due to a spay/neuter. What I *have* known are plenty of females that have suffered problems due to being left entire - Pyometra is nasty, potentially fatal, and occurs far more often than any of the conditions where spaying is seen to increase the risk factor (it's actually noted as being a 'common' condition in vetinary journals. That should tell you a lot about how much more frequently it occurs than do any type of cancer). What I *have* known are entire animals that have contracted infectious diseases due to fighting and mating - where a disease is spread by exchange of bodily fluids the chances of an unaltered animal getting it are much, much higher than those of altered animals.

 

 

 

And both their mother and father should also have been spayed/neutered to remove them from the gene pool. Dogs carrying that sort of genetic risk should clearly not be bred to.

This is people in the working and pet world too, not just show people. The working people don't seem to have any problem keeping control of a bunch of off-leash intact dogs on the field doing schutzhund.

 

She got the cat from the shelter at 3 months old and it was already neutered. I think he's 3 years old now. He began marking my BIL's clothes(he is a smelly person who leaves his clothes all over the floor and never washes them, if that matters), and then the cat moved to marking all male clothing/beds. There were 3 cats in the house, the other two are females, one was his friend and the other tolerated him, and he was an indoor-outdoor cat. He's an indoor-outdoor cat at my SIL's farm and an only cat, but he's marking there too. But I'm guessing by now it's a huge habit.

 

I just don't believe behaviors such as marking and humping are a good enough reason for the government to force spay and neuter. I do think the benefits of spaying outweigh the risks, but I just don't believe neutering has the same benefits at all. Plus, unwanted litters are not what are filling up shelters. It's adults and seniors that make up the majority of the population in shelters and rescues, and those dogs get there from owners giving them up. I'd like to see more education about animal ownership and how you shouldn't get an animal unless you plan to keep it for the entire life of the animal. Mandatory spaying and neutering won't stop people from dumping their dogs. And it's really just a bandaid for the problem of irresponsible owners letting their dogs roam.

 

You may also find that the shelter population may never really decrease. Shelters with high populations ship their animals to shelters with low populations so they have better chances of getting adopted. Sometimes these animals even come from different countries.

 

I'm not entirely sure if the dam and sire were spayed/neutered because both had produced stable dogs in other breedings, all I know is they definitely weren't going to do a repeat breeding. I agree that they should have both been spayed/neutered, though.

 

But here's another reason why BSL is bad. Even if a certain breed isn't on the BSL list in a your city, if it's on the BSL list of another city renters and landlords may ban those dogs because their insurance may not cover those dogs since they are banned in other places. Then you have people dumping their dogs in shelters because no landlord would allow them to live there with that certain breed. So BSL increases shelter populations of breeds that aren't even banned by that city!

Edited February 7, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[TikindiDragon]

She got the cat from the shelter at 3 months old and it was already neutered. I think he's 3 years old now. He began marking my BIL's clothes(he is a smelly person who leaves his clothes all over the floor and never washes them, if that matters), and then the cat moved to marking all male clothing/beds. There were 3 cats in the house, the other two are females, one was his friend and the other tolerated him, and he was an indoor-outdoor cat. He's an indoor-outdoor cat at my SIL's farm and an only cat, but he's marking there too. But I'm guessing by now it's a huge habit.

 

The intricacies of reading dominance issues in a multi-cat household are pretty difficult. The vast majority of people I know (and this does include breeders) often just aren't sensitive enough to every minute detail of the cat's behaviour to notice. That doesn't mean they are bad cat owners, it just means thay haven't got that knack. Spraying can be related to a load of things - up to an including trying to tell people their litter tray isn't clean enough, problems with other cats in the household, and being overly-bonded with a particular person. And, yes, unfortunately once they start to spray it can become quite an ingrained habit. Cats that go out, of both genders, will often mark their territory wether they're neutered or not - it's only when they bring it inside that it's a problem. Not much more I can say on this particular issue as I'd kinda need to *see* the cat in it's home environment.

 

I just don't believe behaviors such as marking and humping are a good enough reason for the government to force spay and neuter. I do think the benefits of spaying outweigh the risks, but I just don't believe neutering has the same benefits at all. Plus, unwanted litters are not what are filling up shelters. It's adults and seniors that make up the majority of the population in shelters and rescues, and those dogs get there from owners giving them up. I'd like to see more education about animal ownership and how you shouldn't get an animal unless you plan to keep it for the entire life of the animal. Mandatory spaying and neutering won't stop people from dumping their dogs. And it's really just a bandaid for the problem of irresponsible owners letting their dogs roam.

 

You may also find that the shelter population may never really decrease. Shelters with high populations ship their animals to shelters with low populations so they have better chances of getting adopted. Sometimes these animals even come from different countries.

 

Yes, it is a band-aid. But it's a simple fact of human existence that you can never eradicate the stupidity. It's going to happen anyway, so you take all the steps you can to reduce it.

 

Older animals get dumped at shelters a lot of the time because the family has got a younger one. New puppy arrives, doesn't get on with older dog... older dog gets rehomed. It's not a great equation, but it happens frighteningly often. And because puppies are so easy and cheap to get from people just 'having a litter' people will keep doing it. They're a lot less likely to re-home a dog that cost them several hundred than they are one they picked up cheap from a newspaper ad. If puppies weren't going in at the bottom of the system, older dogs wouldn't be being dumped so often further up it. Added to which most reputable breeders will offer to re-home dogs they've bred themselves (either personally or through their breed club) - so those people that *do* want to re-home pedigree dogs aren't half as likely to just dump them at a shelter. If *all* non pedigree animals weren't breeding then, yes, the shelter populations *would* drop. Think on it - how many dogs have you seen at a shelter that have full KC paperwork? Added to which the financial commitment of buying a pedigree dog would make people think a lot harder about getting one.

 

I am actually serious when I say I'd like to see all breeding of mongrel animals stopped entirely. And, yes, that is another reason why I think spay/neuter should be mandatory. (Incidental note - I consider anything without papers to be a mongrel. Even if the parents themselves both had papers, if the breeding and puppies weren't then registered I'm afraid the dog is a mutt in my opinion. Doesn't happen so much with cats, happens a load with dogs).

 

I'm not entirely sure if the dam and sire were spayed/neutered because both had produced stable dogs in other breedings, all I know is they definitely weren't going to do a repeat breeding. I agree that they should have both been spayed/neutered, though.

 

Sadly a lot of breeders are very posessive of their 'lines', and won't alter animals even when they know there are some issues. Breeders aren't exactly angels either, but it *is* better than the indiscriminate breeding that goes on outside of the Club/Show worlds.

 

But here's another reason why BSL is bad. Even if a certain breed isn't on the BSL list in a your city, if it's on the BSL list of another city renters and landlords may ban those dogs because their insurance may not cover those dogs since they are banned in other places. Then you have people dumping their dogs in shelters because no landlord would allow them to live there with that certain breed. So BSL increases shelter populations of breeds that aren't even banned by that city!

 

And, yes, I agree with you. I'm against legislation being specific to a certain breed - it makes about as much sense to me as legislation being applied only to certain makes of car. Being against Breed Specific Legislation doesn't mean I'm agaist Legislation applying to *all* dogs, though. Which was kinda my point.

[7Deadly$ins]

I agree with Tikindi even if it's a bit radical by most people's standards. Though, I do think there should be allowances for the establishment of new breeds and the occasional outcross (which I wish more breed organizations were open to in the first place).

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I come from a dog-loving household. We've owned dogs my whole life. My dad owns three beautiful Goldens, and my family at home has had two wonderful Shepherd/Lab crossbreeds over the course of my life.

 

And... then we got a Pitbull mix for our third family dog (bad, bad call mom!). He was terrible. Kept chasing and biting everyone, refused to be housebroken, ate things like DS games and even fake teeth. Worst dog we'd ever owned, and the first we ever returned--we ended up returning him to the shelter in the end because we couldn't handle him anymore. He got taken in by a family without young kids, and last we heard he's doing fine. That to me proves two things: all breeds can be good in certain environments, but there are certainly ones that aren't as, shall we say, people-friendly as others.

 

And with that fact comes the fact that certain... types... of people often prefer breeds with certain characteristics. My grandpa and grandma live next to a very confrontational person who has a pitbull that he keeps a terrible eye on, and said dog keeps wandering into their yard and scaring the heck out of them. Big, 'macho,' angry people tend to want dogs that match that, which can be an issue. If all your experiences with the dogs and the people who usually own them have been bad, then I can see why you'd want to keep the dogs away in the hopes of also keeping out their associated types of persons.

 

I guess I can conclude with saying I have mixed feelings about BSL. I used to be adamantly against it, but those two recent pitbull-related experiences have made me uneasy. I hear lots of people claiming how sweet the breed can be, but when in twenty years of dog-loving, two of the only three bad experiences I've had with dogs have come from them (the other one was regarding a Greyhound... stupid dog e___e), it's hard for me to be comfortable about having them around. On the other hand, as I said, it can certainly go to extremes--I've heard stories of rescued dogs that had to be moved to different districts just to get vet care because of their breed, which is silly. If you want to keep people from owning them to begin with, that's one matter, but keeping dogs rescued from terrible owners from getting immediate medical care is just dumb.

Edited February 7, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[StormWizard212]

You say that, and I find it quite funny that legislation in the US seems to think cat = dog. Or at least cats = every bit as trainable and controlable as dogs. I'm pretty sure anyone that's ever owned a cat would tell you they are very different animals, yet the same expectations are placed on cat owners that are placed on dog owners. Thankfully where I live in the UK they recognse that a cat is broadly it's own animal.

Wow, seriously? I didn't know that, but that's insane. Then again, my neighbour who walks her cat in the park on a leash might feel differently... *snorts*

 

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where it is a legal requirement for all dogs to be registered, liscenced and micropchipped (and subject to seizure if they have not been once they're over 6 months). I'd also like to see a legal requirement for puppies to attend socialisation and obidience classes, and (possibly most controversially) I'd like to see a legal requirement for all dogs not owned by registered breeders to be spayed/neutered.

I agree with most of this. In Australia, it actually is a requirement that all dogs are registered and microchipped. Though responsible breeders should be doing this themselves before the pup even reaches its new family. My breeders were in contact with me during the whole process, so that my details could be registered with the microchip, etc. I also agree with spaying/neutering. I think a lot of people are a bit naive and don't really understand the consequences of what they're doing ("backyard breeders"). You hear too many awful stories about people who attempt to breed their pups without doing the necessary research first and it's just devastating. Similarly, if you're not planning on breeding your dogs, there can be severe health and social side effects of not desexing them. Males become far more prone to aggression/territorial behaviour and females have the risk of ~some illness that I can't remember the name of~ increased annually the longer they aren't spayed. I'm aware that some people see it as immoral since it is very invasive surgery and I personally wish there was a better way of going about it, but even still, vets and qualified trainers say that the side effects of not desexing are far worse than the temporary side-effects of the surgery.

 

What I don't agree with, however, is a requirement for puppies to attend obedience classes. Socialisation is very important for young pups, yes, but I think that people are able to achieve this themselves by being attentive owners and socialising their pets with other friends/families' animals. Having taken my own two puppies to separate obedience classes, I wouldn't go back for a third with the next dog I got. The sole benefit was the socialisation which is something I can organise myself. I wouldn't be able to justify the expense of taking them along to class when the results were less than beneficial. I didn't learn anything that I hadn't already learnt from my own research before getting my pups and mine could already sit etc. long before we were learning it in class.

 

What I do think would be very beneficial though is free and supervised events and activities at your local vet, or wherever else is convenient, set up by the vet themselves. So for people who don't know other people with pets can socialise theirs in a safe environment without any risk. So instead of forcing people to take classes, I'd prefer to see a system that offers more support (and encouragement to attend) than what we've currently got. My local vet has always been very, very supportive and helpful to me, but the relationship that I've got with them, as great as it is, is one that I've pushed for. And I recognise that not a lot of people are going to put in that effort, so I really think the vet themselves should be trying to push that relationship with all new pet owners, to give them the help and support they need. Because frankly, raising puppies is hard work. You need the help.

 

You actually said the problem right there in your post. Dotes. There's an unfortunate problem that the vast majority of poeple actually *don't* know the best way to train & live with digs, even if they have the best intentions in the world.

That was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I know this woman quite well and she's actually done everything by the book. She took her pup to various obedience classes for the first 18 months of his life, which is considerably longer than most people do, and she tries very hard to train him. Whether she's doing this right or wrong, I obviously can't say since I don't follow her home or anything to watch. But with that amount of external help, she should be doing things right, which either says that 1) there's a problem with her dog, or 2) there's a problem with the services she's getting. Either is an issue, since if you're taking your dog along to training for that long, you should be getting adequate help and support from them.

 

And YES. The people who allow their dogs to walk in front of them, pull, etc. and don't think it's a problem. The amount of people I hear saying "yes, my little buddy down here controls our walks, I go where he wants!" and don't see it as a problem astounds me. If you can't control your dog over something as simple as a walk, then you're not going to be able to control him/her when it comes to important issues, such as in the event of aggression or an attack.

 

This thread probably isn't the best place to get into an in-depth discussion about the whole "pack leader" issue, but I do think it's an issue. If you want to be able to look after your dog and protect them, etc. they need to respect you. Details as minute as who walks through a door first, you or your dog, can make an immense difference in the relationship you have with your dog. And yet, even my vet allows dogs to walk in the door before him, as though it makes no difference. I know not everyone believes that the whole pack leader thing exists and is an issue, or whatever, but frankly, dogs are very different to us in the way that they work. Unless you're going to take the time to understand their mentality and psychology, things are going to be difficult.

 

So to bring this all back to the law and BSL, while I understand the idea behind it and do agree that certain breeds are more prone to certain behaviour than others, I think that there are a lot of fundamental issues with pets that the law, vets, and a lot of owners don't consider that are equally as important. Not even the dog trainers I've met with have really ever talked about the whole pack mentality that dogs have which I find ridiculous, because at the end of the day, they're pack animals. No matter how long they've been domesticated for, it's still ingrained in what they are and you can't just ignore that.

 

Edit: Aww man, this wasn't meant to be a long post either. Seems I just can't shut up on this topic. I was never very passionate about any of this until I got my own dogs. Owning dogs as a kid and as an adult is very, very different (even though it's only a matter of years for me. Having a dog at 16 and having one at 22 is not the same).

Edited February 8, 2013 by StormWizard212

[Classycal]

That's actually false. There are dogs that are truly born aggressive. These dogs have something genetically wrong with them, and they are usually put down. On a german shepherd forum I go to, one lady got a puppy that would have instances of purely unprovoked aggression. No matter what they did, nothing helped, and they had to put it down. It turned out that nearly the entire litter had to be euthanized for aggression problems.

 

Although it's very rare, some dogs even suffer from a problem called Rage Syndrome where they have a type of seizure that causes them to very randomly viciously attack the closest thing to them. If it's a shadow dog like a german shepherd, it's usually the owner that gets attacked. This can be managed with medication, but you won't know your dog has this problem until the first attack. Genetics are extremely important.

 

Yes, there are some dogs (as well as people) that have severe genetic issues. And while it's very important, it's not a BSL issue. Granted some breeds of dogs are more prone to certain genetic issues like hip dysplasia, etc, but I don't know that any one breed is more prone to things like schizophrenia or rage than any other breed.

 

 

This thread probably isn't the best place to get into an in-depth discussion about the whole "pack leader" issue, but I do think it's an issue. If you want to be able to look after your dog and protect them, etc. they need to respect you. Details as minute as who walks through a door first, you or your dog, can make an immense difference in the relationship you have with your dog. And yet, even my vet allows dogs to walk in the door before him, as though it makes no difference. I know not everyone believes that the whole pack leader thing exists and is an issue, or whatever, but frankly, dogs are very different to us in the way that they work. Unless you're going to take the time to understand their mentality and psychology, things are going to be difficult.

 

Perhaps your vet allows the dogs to walk in the door before him to keep them more controlled? I find it much harder to have the dog come in behind you risking them getting caught in the door or hit by the door than having them just go ahead and walk in in front of you. (On the other hand, when going out of the door, the dog always follows me.) You could liken this to getting in the car first - and then have the dog get in. It's not likely to work very well. I think most dogs can separate this particular idea from other pack leader mentalities. But this would have to be individualized to the dog, of course.

 

And, on a note about cats... I'm also surprised that some people think you can equate dog and cat mentality. They are very, very different animals.

[brairtrainer]

 

And, on a note about cats... I'm also surprised that some people think you can equate dog and cat mentality. They are very, very different animals.

I sometimes place my cat on with the dogs, but that is because as I've watched him he has adopted habits from both cat instinct and his interactions with dogs including: flagging his tail, jumping up on hind legs when wanting to go out, vying for alpha amoung the dogs (leading to some interesting conflicts >.>), eating the dogs food before his own if he can shoo them away, and reacting to no an sometimes other commands.

 

I don't treat my cat like a dog but I do sometimes use dog training techniques on him when nothing seems to work or useing a spray bottle. But I wouldn't do it for all cats.

[TikindiDragon]

I sometimes place my cat on with the dogs, but that is because as I've watched him he has adopted habits from both cat instinct and his interactions with dogs including: flagging his tail, jumping up on hind legs when wanting to go out, vying for alpha amoung the dogs (leading to some interesting conflicts >.>), eating the dogs food before his own if he can shoo them away, and reacting to no an sometimes other commands.

 

I don't treat my cat like a dog but I do sometimes use dog training techniques on him when nothing seems to work or useing a spray bottle. But I wouldn't do it for all cats.

Just a note on that - no amont of living with dogs will turn any movement of a cat's tail into a dog-like wag. It just won't. The movements of a cat's tail mean vastly different things to the movements of a dogs.

[tjsweepers]

I live in an area that has a lot of pits/am staffs/bully breeds, while the city has no BSL outright, people have gotten around it by placing housing restrictions. Most apartments have size limits true, but even more town homes/ homes for rent have breed restrictions. its to the point that if you go to the shelter to adopt a bully breed they require a copy of your lease/ tenants agreement or if you own a home, a copy of your home owners insurance stating that they don't have a Bully clause.

this is in an otherwise pet friendly city too.

 

[kiffren]

You guys make such long posts. v.v

 

Going to say upfront that I did not read every word in every post, but I read most of Tikindi's posts. That's who I'm addressing right now.

 

Ideally I'd like to see a situation where it is a legal requirement for all dogs to be registered, liscenced and micropchipped (and subject to seizure if they have not been once they're over 6 months). I'd also like to see a legal requirement for puppies to attend socialisation and obidience classes, and (possibly most controversially) I'd like to see a legal requirement for all dogs not owned by registered breeders to be spayed/neutered.

 

I disagree with everything you want to ideally see. The only one that I wouldn't be too upset about is registering your dog, though giving owners a year would make more sense than six months. The reason I wouldn't want this is that a lot (by a lot I do not mean to imply a majority) of dogs are working dogs. Telling an owner of a sheep ranch that he has to register every pup that his working dogs have doesn't really make sense. These dogs are protectors of his land, they guard his animals from predators. They also will probably periodically get killed. Registering them does not benefit the dog in any way, unless it gets lost. Even then it's debatable.

 

Microchips: Again, this doesn't benefit the dog. It simply benefits the owner in finding their lost dog. There are other ways of finding a dog, this should be a choice. Are you told you have to have a gps on your child? No. So why do we need a microchip on our dog? Young children are no more capable of finding home, in fact less capable of it, than most dogs.

 

Socialization: No, absolutely not. My dogs are raised with other family dogs, I don't want them with strange dogs that I don't know. Those dogs might have diseases, or bad habits (like barking), that my pup might pick up. If I want to socialize him, I'll have him interact with other dogs I know and trust (such as my own).

 

Obedience classes: Again, absolutely not. They are useful, but not everyone needs them. Thor is an avalanche rescue dog. The commands I use with him are unique to him. He is also the best trained one year old I know. Everyone who meets him thinks he is much older, since one year old dogs are expected to still behave like puppies. I do not want some other person telling me how to train my partner, for that is what he is.

 

Spaying and Neutering: Again, absolutely not. Definitely not. Of my four dogs, only one is neutered. Of my cats, the female is only spayed because she had health problems associated with pregnancy. (We allow our cats to have at most two litters before we spay them, all the kittens stay on the property.) We have three male dogs, and one female. The female is not spayed. She has never had a litter, and she has no interest in either of the two unfixed males. We originally got her to breed with our original male, but she rejected him. At this point, spaying her won't do anything but cost us money and have her undergo an unnecessary procedure.

 

As for the male dogs we have. They are unfixed and have no behavioral problems. Yes, stallions have behavioral problems but geldings do not. However horses are not dogs. We don't fix mares. We cannot compare dogs and horses in this sense, or you would be suggesting that we fix male dogs but not females. Fixing a dog changes his temperament. On some dogs, I am sure it is necessary (or at least, the owners thing it's necessary) in order to make them controlable. On other dogs, it isn't.

 

Furthermore, again Thor is a working dog. He is an avalanche rescue dog, and for various reasons that I won't get into here it is best to leave him unfixed (you also don't fix hunting dogs).

 

And YES. The people who allow their dogs to walk in front of them, pull, etc. and don't think it's a problem. The amount of people I hear saying "yes, my little buddy down here controls our walks, I go where he wants!" and don't see it as a problem astounds me. If you can't control your dog over something as simple as a walk, then you're not going to be able to control him/her when it comes to important issues, such as in the event of aggression or an attack.

 

As above, I have a working dog. When we are on the trail of someone, his job is to run in front on the leash (or off leash if he's doing air scent) and my job is to run full speed after him. As for the other dogs we have, two of them are Great Pyrenees. They will not work at your side, it's not the way they have been selectively bred. Whereas Thor will walk at my side if I ask, they won't. Bear often runs ahead on walks (they're walked off leash, it's safe in our area), and when she is on leash she is a few steps ahead (and to the side) of the person with the leash. We don't pull them, but we don't force them to be by our side either.

 

Sorry if I missed a bunch of comments, I just wanted to chime in with my opinion on these things.

 

I'm not against all restrictions for dogs (or other pets). I'd like something like the sex offender registry for animal abuse, keep those people from getting animals. Not sure if this would be possible to implement, but yeah.

 

Wow, I made a longer post than planned on.

Edited February 11, 2013 by kiffren

[TikindiDragon]

Not gonna quote you Kiff (it'd make everything unnesecarily long) but having put most of my points forward I don't feel the need to reiterate them except to say I disagree with you.

 

Although I would like to point out that I am at least consistant about this sort of thing - I think that there should be the same requirements for owning anything potentially dangerous (guns, cars, dogs... all are potentially dangerous). I've always been a little confused as to why we tend to be so strict about cars requiring liscensing, registration and tests in order to drive them and yet so many people kick up such a fuss when it's suggested in any other area.

[babybluefire]

Dogs can have mental or physical health issues that cause them to act out. When I was a child we had a springer spaniel with rage syndrome. She would zone out, maul whatever was close to her, have a seizure and then wake up and never remember what happened. She nailed my sister on the hand when my sister went to wake her up to go outside and play. Then was panicked and freaking out because she had no idea why one of her children was crying and bleeding. My parents put her down because they couldn't not risk the dog hurting one of us, we were all 10 and under. It would not have been fair to put her outside in a kennel, its not something my parents could have trained out of her.

 

 

All behavior problems, either genetic or training faults are human error. I believe all animals to be able to breed and be registered in their breeds should pass conformation and temperament testing. A few breeds of horses do that and it results in fantastic animals. That being said I do have a horse that both myself and the women who bred him deeply regret gelding him. He is a fantastic animal. He was only gelded because he was an darn ugly baby. He matured into the gorgeous and wonderfully behaved bomb proof animal he is today. Its too bad he was gelded, was his parents last baby and the rest of his line is all dead.

[kiffren]

Not gonna quote you Kiff (it'd make everything unnesecarily long) but having put most of my points forward I don't feel the need to reiterate them except to say I disagree with you.

 

Although I would like to point out that I am at least consistant about this sort of thing - I think that there should be the same requirements for owning anything potentially dangerous (guns, cars, dogs... all are potentially dangerous). I've always been a little confused as to why we tend to be so strict about cars requiring liscensing, registration and tests in order to drive them and yet so many people kick up such a fuss when it's suggested in any other area.

We're veering off topic now but yeah, I tend to be consistent in my "NO RULES, BRO!" stance. Just enough reasonable rules/regulations to keep people safe . I notice that we do seem to have opposite opinions on quite a few of these things.

 

All behavior problems, either genetic or training faults are human error. I believe all animals to be able to breed and be registered in their breeds should pass conformation and temperament testing. A few breeds of horses do that and it results in fantastic animals. That being said I do have a horse that both myself and the women who bred him deeply regret gelding him. He is a fantastic animal. He was only gelded because he was an darn ugly baby. He matured into the gorgeous and wonderfully behaved bomb proof animal he is today. Its too bad he was gelded, was his parents last baby and the rest of his line is all dead.

 

Could you explain how all behavioral problems are the faults of human error? I'm just curious where that's coming from.

 

Edit: Go away yellow smiley faces.

Edited February 11, 2013 by kiffren

[brairtrainer]

You guys make such long posts. v.v

 

Going to say upfront that I did not read every word in every post, but I read most of Tikindi's posts. That's who I'm addressing right now.

 

 

 

As above, I have a working dog. When we are on the trail of someone, his job is to run in front on the leash (or off leash if he's doing air scent) and my job is to run full speed after him. As for the other dogs we have, two of them are Great Pyrenees. They will not work at your side, it's not the way they have been selectively bred. Whereas Thor will walk at my side if I ask, they won't. Bear often runs ahead on walks (they're walked off leash, it's safe in our area), and when she is on leash she is a few steps ahead (and to the side) of the person with the leash. We don't pull them, but we don't force them to be by our side either.

 

Sorry if I missed a bunch of comments, I just wanted to chime in with my opinion on these things.

 

I'm not against all restrictions for dogs (or other pets). I'd like something like the sex offender registry for animal abuse, keep those people from getting animals. Not sure if this would be possible to implement, but yeah.

 

Wow, I made a longer post than planned on.

I have to say kif you've summed up where i sit and then some.

 

I see microchips helping dogs who defend property but only if you are sure they can't fall out and helpful for pets for owners who want them.

 

that being said my view is also based on dogs I've met/had. Our Sharpei doesn't run and her skin makes it hard for a microchip, infact the only dog I could see microchiping now is our cocker.

 

Really I think people need to look at the dogs individually and say what is this dog doing and what makes sense and what are the owners doing.

[babybluefire]

What I meant was two parted.

 

Backyard breeding of very poor quality animals with out taking the extensive care to spay and neuter everything but the best of the breed will lead to genetic problems. Extreme aggression, or fear, or other physical or physiological issues. Animals that go on to bite because of these issues, well its not the dogs fault if they are terribly bred and have issues. That is the humans fault.

 

 

Then there is training. Even if you take wonderfully bred dogs with fantastic parents and grandparents and either train them to be aggressive intentionally or fail to be bothered to train them at all. That again is not the dogs fault, its the humans fault.

 

 

It is possible to have a well trained and well bred dog have behavior issues, but it is defiantly not the norm In my experience.