So many dogs in the shelters

[eman91000]

They are literally bursting at the seams and begging for fosters. If we didn’t have a reactive dog, we could help out a lot more. Do y’all ever grieve that or feel some typa way even towards the dog? I don’t punish him in any way of course, it’s just puppy season in the south and I’m in my feelings.

 

[orthodoxservant10]

@eman91000 I feel like shelter dogs are a problem with a solution. We have to stop irresponsible breeding and only allow breeding from ethical breeders. Dogs ending up in shelters should not be a thing.

People fostering and adopting shelter dogs is just a bandaid solution. So many dogs spend years at shelters or end up euth'd. Piles and piles of euth'd dogs and cats every year. This is awful and we shouldn't be allowing it to continue.

 

[alex001]

@orthodoxservant10 Agree. I don’t know that there is a solution that would work in the US but getting to the source of these unwanted dogs seems a better solution than trying to find homes for all of them. Irresponsible people create the problem that responsible people try to solve, but it’s never ending. The cat situation seems particularly intractable due to the number of feral cats involved.

 

[mango]

@alex001 Strict laws and federal licensing to be allowed to breed animals with strict penalties for being caught doing it that are enforced

If the data on dog health weren't pointing to altering damaging the health of adult dogs if they aren't allowed to get the hormones (especially large breeds) I'd say mandatory altering too. Requiring a spay/neuter in order to have county registration and requiring registration to own.

It would cut down a lot of "I want my kids to experience the miracle of life" litters and weed out backyard breeders one at a time

 

[whipsaw]

@mango I agree. I so wish this was the case. I mean, we still have a ton of people refraining from spaying and neutering not even because of worries about plate growth, etc. but because of basic male fragility and a fear of their dogs losing their balls. It's so frustrating.

 

[tecumsehmaverick]

@whipsaw if registration was enforced with age records, the county could then require records of sterilization upon reaching age before the renewal of the registration.

The big issue would be early reproduction from before the age of sterilization then.

 

[lgreene615]

@whipsaw Or maybe it is the cost?

 

[sandlapper3]

@lgreene615 Both can be true, not just one reason

 

[grantners]

@mango I think a lot of it is the cost in my area. Minimum $300 that a lot of people don't have to spend. Seems it would be cheaper to subsidize neuter/spaying than future puppies/kittens.

 

[alex001]

@mango Sounds great and I’d support it! I can’t imagine most people in my southern state would support any part of this though, especially anything from the federal level.

 

[katharina800]

@mango Yeah, I’m typically very pro neuter but was advised by my dog’s veterinary behaviourist and the vets at his clinic this could make his fear-based reactivity worse and aggressive. So they won’t recommend neutering unless he has other issues develop. I asked about vasectomy and they said they could try but I guess infections are more likely to occur, result being castration anyway.

This hasn’t been a huge deal for us because I’m responsible, he’s an indoor dog, we keep him away from females in heat, etc. but it obviously doesn’t account for people keeping their dogs in gardens or letting them approach other dogs off-lead. I’m all for fining the heck out of people for unlicensed breeding, though.

 

[paverabek]

@orthodoxservant10 breeds that are more likely to be reactive/dog-aggressive and high maintenance are being disproportionately bred and placed into shelters (huskies, bully breeds, and GSDs). Bully breeds in particular are 3x less likely to be sterilized than other breeds. It's a huge problem.

 

[grantners]

@paverabek I think a lot of this is family income. Bully breeds are often really cheap or free - most people I know with these breeds just wanted a dog and couldn't afford/couldn't wait for other breeds. Families can't afford to get the animal spayed or neutered then the cycle just continues.

 

[mrshallam]

@grantners This is why we need something like pet tax here. It will likely prevent financially unstable people from impulse buying a dog or any other animals. If you can't afford to take proper care of the dog, you should not get a dog PERIOD.

 

[ephfoureight]

@mrshallam The problem with this is that a dog is a 10+ year commitment. One year they may struggle, and dedicate everything to their dog/family— but a tax on top would be too much. They’ll get back on their feet, but to refuse them the chance to struggle to succeed again as a whole unit can cause problems.
This also could cause problems as taxes can be increased by local government. Similar to some actions, this may become a racist factor.
The idea of pit bulls being owned by POC is common in racists minds, and then those taxes would be increased within cities where minorities will now have another fear— a new avenue for officers to inflict fines and citations that’s prices will soar.

Along with this, inability to pay the tax means you are taking that dog from an already established family.

Another aspect, saying people can’t own a dog without paying a tax/are too poor is the same as telling people they can’t have kids because they are too poor. It’s not your right, even if it seems like a conceptually decent idea. You are refusing them the chance of that family (baby or furbaby).
I’m all for responsible ownership, I support dogs only going to homes where they can be healthy and happy. But, I will never believe in refusing what could be a loving relationship based on others opinions of financial credibility.
Also, by imposing this tax, any person who has a pet but can’t afford the tax on their tight budget (of which we can already assume a healthy and happy dog has their food and care included in said budget), how many more dogs would enter shelters? How many prospective owners would be refused because they don’t seem to be stable (something as simple as being a server, instead of an office worker on contract)?
Shelters would also have to struggle to figure out if potential adopters fit the criteria, which can require a credit check or background check— something I know a lot of people around me would not do well on, even though they are doing better and succeeding in life currently.

 

[mrshallam]

@ephfoureight I agree to some points you made here, but I believe pet tax is necessary because it will at least prevent people from impulse buying puppies. Although it seems like a common sense, some people do not realize that keeping dogs is a commitment and costs a lot. If there is a pet tax, more people will think first and ask themselves if they can afford a dog before getting one. Also, if you cannot afford a tax, you probably don't have money to give proper care of an animal. Plenty of European countries implemented dog tax and they succeeded. Do you often see overcrowded animal shelters with tons of euthanized dogs like in US in Europe with such tax? No.

Criticizing dog tax because "people have right to own a dog regardless of financial situation" is just selfish and thinking only of humans. Dogs have right to get proper care and certainly do not deserve to be abandoned or placed in shelters because their owners did not think deep enough before getting a dog and/or do not have money to take care of pet's illness.

 

[ephfoureight]

@mrshallam My exact wording was financial credibility, not situation. This is in reference to people’s background checks/credit rating. I also mention healthy and happy dogs, with reference that those who I would never want to put an extra tax on. This is in defense of people who already can afford their care and food, as I mentioned in my post. I NEVER mentioned a regard or support for people who can’t afford care and therefore neglect an animal. The only exception to my ‘never’ reference, is the analogy to a common human rights argument (of poor people not being allowed children). Which is simply a human rights approach.
I don’t believe in starving dogs, and I don’t believe my opinion that families that are able to afford the care shouldn’t be allowed a dog due to an extra tax is selfish.
I don’t think it’s selfish of me to defend people in my area who I know dedicate so much, but because of their tax bracket would be unable to afford to keep their pet or add one into their family once ready and prepared.

 

[mrshallam]

@ephfoureight I'm not sure where financial credibility comes from... can you please explain? I'm not sure why you mentioned tax bracket and financial credibility, but the "pet tax" I mentioned is type of mandatory pet registration fee that you pay every year- you might wanna check out how Germany do it because I think it's one of the first country to implement such tax. Also the purpose of pet tax is mostly for keeping people from buying new dogs, reducing the demand of puppies thus reducing the unnecessary and over breeding of dogs- and also to reduce the number of dogs abandoned/surrendered. If US were to implement pet tax/registration fees, I would assume that current dog owners would get exempt because it can create all sorts of problem like people who are financially unstable from abandoning dogs. Also exempting pet tax for rescued dogs might be a good idea to drive people to find a dog in shelters instead of going to breeders.

 

[ephfoureight]

@mrshallam When tax is mentioned the first thought that comes to my mind is the factor that taxes increase/decrease on your income level (in the US), this means that someone in a lower bracket may pay more of their entire earnings than a moderately wealthy or wealthy individual (not percentage wise, but hopefully understandable with the following) To put it in simplest terms, John is considered a lower income bracket, and his pet tax of 5% could end up being $25, but mike in a higher tax bracket would be paying $250. Seems fair until you realize John only makes $500, and although that $500 can cover all his needs and his pets needs, that extra $25 throws everything off, makes the owning of an animal he could care for and afford no longer possible, especially if there are citations/fines included for a missed tax payment due to needing the money either for dog or self. Meanwhile high tax bracket Mikes $250 is because he gets $2,500, and that $250 removal still leaves him with thousands, meaning he probably wouldn’t be that affected.
This is in line with the racist approach I brought up, as cities/counties can increase taxes for certain things or include their own on top. As in the past, it’s been noted taxes or interest rates are directly applied to encourage or discourage groups. This has gotten better, but is no where near completely gone.

What you describe sounds more like paying for a license and getting it updated to get/keep a dog, maybe on a sliding scale for income. I could support that, as it’s similar to having a boating license to legally keep a boat on your property, as it shows you have intent and knowledge of having such a thing.
If it’s like that, I can support it. If it’s like what I described in the scenario above with John and Mike, I simply can’t.
The credit rating was mainly brought up, as I forgot to add in that I feel the burden would be also on shelters to run checks to make sure they aren’t adopting out to homes that can’t afford a tax. Which would increase costs on them, and also show that even if someone is doing better now, their credit rating may reflect some mistakes from 8-40 years ago. Places can’t check your wages/income besides asking, but can check your credit to see if you have a history of being on time for payments or late on payments. But your credit score is constantly affected, and as mentioned a mistake from a whole decade ago could still reflect poorly.

 

[mrshallam]

@ephfoureight I can see why you mentioned those things. But I meant the mandatory fee you pay every year for owning a dog. It is a dog registration fee but is often referred to as "dog tax". Anyways, the point is, such fees are necessary especially in the US where shelters are overflowing and hundreds and thousands of dogs are getting euthanized every day.