Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the “not kill” laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Agreed, but in reality, the choices are A) adopt dangerous dogs out to people, B) hold onto the dogs for their entire natural life, C) release them onto the streets, or D) euthanize some of them.
A is obviously not ideal; a human getting killed by a dog that they expected to be nice is worse than that dog dying. B would be great if shelters had infinite space and infinite funding, but realistically they have limited space and limited funding. That leaves us with C or D. Stray animals make more stray animals, they attack people, pets, and wildlife, they spread disease, and they tend to die horrible deaths. Euthanasia sucks, but the real alternatives are worse.
The real solution that no one wants to implement is to make it a crime to have dogs and cats that aren’t spayed or neutered, with extraordinarily rare exception. The only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are working dogs, and that should be closely regulated. Your shepherd/retriever mix, however cute he is, should not make more puppies as long as shelters are overflowing and turning animals away.
“But wouldn’t that lead to the extinction of these companion animals?” Be realistic–this law would never catch every single illegal breeder, and it would never prevent strays from breeding. Dogs and cats would not go extinct, they would just stop bringing shelters to capacity and beyond.
There are plenty of less common dog breeds that should be preserved that aren’t classified as “working dogs” any more.
Half the problem is that working breeds don’t make good sedentary pets, but some of them are pretty or give off a certain vibe, so people buy them and can’t take care of them. (See huskies, German Shepherds, Pit breeds, etc.)
Less-popular breeds with responsible clubs do just fine. Give clubs the ability to work with law enforcement to find and shut down irresponsible breeders, and the problem would be quickly resolved. Whether that’s licensing to breed or some other solution, it should be possible.
Before I say this, I feel it’s important to clarify that I have nothing against any individual dogs or breeds, and I don’t think any animals should have to be euthanized unless they’ve shown that they as an individual are dangerous.
That being said, I can’t think of a single breed besides border collies that has any valid reason to exist for another generation. If breeders were more worried about breeding for health instead of looks and behaviour, I might be okay with it, but I’ve seen too many pure bred dogs with debilitating health defects due to their breed. German Shepherds are beautiful dogs, but it isn’t worth making them suffer through hip displasia just to look at them.
I obviously don’t think every dog except for border collies should go extinct within the next 20 years, but a law that criminalizes breeding wouldn’t stop all dogs from breeding. There will never be a shortage of dogs for people to adopt, and a mutt is just as good, if not better, than a pure breed.
You should broaden your horizons. Many breeds concentrate on health. Behavior is important for many, too. Border collies couldn’t do a vast majority of service animal tasks, and they make terrible pets, especially for families with small kids, which improves outstanding and mental health for children. There are other sports like scent and racing (for fun, not gambling.) Not to mention therapy animals. Border collies would have challenges there, too.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you’re raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn’t enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn’t growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can’t be the solution to the moral question “is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven’t tried all in our power”, it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
Well you can’t really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.
The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you’ve got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.
I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it’s a struggling industry and I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.
I understand. I’m living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn’t get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a “no killing” law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
No kill at least in Australia means you can’t put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they’ve attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren’t suitable for readoption.
At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it’s cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can’t be trusted as a family pet.
I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought… I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.
Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.
I don’t need to provide anything to you. I have plenty of industry data that’s not available to be shared, there’s plenty of public data for my state, but unless you’re in New South Wales, Australia - it will be irrelevant to you. This is a first world, world wide issue.
Go on to Google and search ‘dog attack, seizure and euthanasia rates’ for wherever you are, even better to specific pounds, animal facilities and rescues and do the math yourself.
Alternatively, go volunteer at your local shelter, you’re very concerned about these animals and every shelter desperately needs more help. Go help first hand and tell me how many of those dogs you’d let in your house with your kids and your loved ones.
I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs.
Well sure. Who’s gonna cover that funding gap? Not me.
So, what, let the excess or aggressive dogs starve but treat them nicely until they do? Let them run feral?
Or humanely put them down?
Edit: Y’all downvoting me should go volunteer at a local shelter for a while. I love dogs. I absolutely love dogs. But because of irresponsible owners and breeders we often have too many dogs and full shelters. Resources are not infinite.
It is cruel to keep dogs alive in increasingly smaller spaces, or hoard them, as we run out of room because you feel guilty about putting them down.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to rehoming, rescuing, or fostering dogs. Or opposed to shelters in general! I think those practices are important. Our current dog is a rehome.
Since the 70s massive strides have been made mostly by promoting fixing your dog in a timely fashion including low cost spay and neuter or “last litter” programs where they help you adopt out the puppies and fix the mom so they don’t have another.
Both kills and intake are a small fraction of what they were in the 70s down as much as 80% despite a concurrent increase in population in that time.
Well, I will be honest with you - I’d gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn’t get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don’t have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.
Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the “not kill” laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Agreed, but in reality, the choices are A) adopt dangerous dogs out to people, B) hold onto the dogs for their entire natural life, C) release them onto the streets, or D) euthanize some of them.
A is obviously not ideal; a human getting killed by a dog that they expected to be nice is worse than that dog dying. B would be great if shelters had infinite space and infinite funding, but realistically they have limited space and limited funding. That leaves us with C or D. Stray animals make more stray animals, they attack people, pets, and wildlife, they spread disease, and they tend to die horrible deaths. Euthanasia sucks, but the real alternatives are worse.
The real solution that no one wants to implement is to make it a crime to have dogs and cats that aren’t spayed or neutered, with extraordinarily rare exception. The only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are working dogs, and that should be closely regulated. Your shepherd/retriever mix, however cute he is, should not make more puppies as long as shelters are overflowing and turning animals away.
“But wouldn’t that lead to the extinction of these companion animals?” Be realistic–this law would never catch every single illegal breeder, and it would never prevent strays from breeding. Dogs and cats would not go extinct, they would just stop bringing shelters to capacity and beyond.
There are plenty of less common dog breeds that should be preserved that aren’t classified as “working dogs” any more.
Half the problem is that working breeds don’t make good sedentary pets, but some of them are pretty or give off a certain vibe, so people buy them and can’t take care of them. (See huskies, German Shepherds, Pit breeds, etc.)
Less-popular breeds with responsible clubs do just fine. Give clubs the ability to work with law enforcement to find and shut down irresponsible breeders, and the problem would be quickly resolved. Whether that’s licensing to breed or some other solution, it should be possible.
Otherwise, I agree.
Before I say this, I feel it’s important to clarify that I have nothing against any individual dogs or breeds, and I don’t think any animals should have to be euthanized unless they’ve shown that they as an individual are dangerous.
That being said, I can’t think of a single breed besides border collies that has any valid reason to exist for another generation. If breeders were more worried about breeding for health instead of looks and behaviour, I might be okay with it, but I’ve seen too many pure bred dogs with debilitating health defects due to their breed. German Shepherds are beautiful dogs, but it isn’t worth making them suffer through hip displasia just to look at them.
I obviously don’t think every dog except for border collies should go extinct within the next 20 years, but a law that criminalizes breeding wouldn’t stop all dogs from breeding. There will never be a shortage of dogs for people to adopt, and a mutt is just as good, if not better, than a pure breed.
You should broaden your horizons. Many breeds concentrate on health. Behavior is important for many, too. Border collies couldn’t do a vast majority of service animal tasks, and they make terrible pets, especially for families with small kids, which improves outstanding and mental health for children. There are other sports like scent and racing (for fun, not gambling.) Not to mention therapy animals. Border collies would have challenges there, too.
Those illegal breeders would make bank.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you’re raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn’t enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn’t growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can’t be the solution to the moral question “is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven’t tried all in our power”, it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
Well you can’t really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.
The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you’ve got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.
I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it’s a struggling industry and I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.
I understand. I’m living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn’t get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a “no killing” law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
No kill at least in Australia means you can’t put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they’ve attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren’t suitable for readoption.
At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it’s cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can’t be trusted as a family pet.
I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought… I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.
Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.
You paint a picture but where is your data on most of the dogs being unsuitable?
I don’t need to provide anything to you. I have plenty of industry data that’s not available to be shared, there’s plenty of public data for my state, but unless you’re in New South Wales, Australia - it will be irrelevant to you. This is a first world, world wide issue.
Go on to Google and search ‘dog attack, seizure and euthanasia rates’ for wherever you are, even better to specific pounds, animal facilities and rescues and do the math yourself.
Alternatively, go volunteer at your local shelter, you’re very concerned about these animals and every shelter desperately needs more help. Go help first hand and tell me how many of those dogs you’d let in your house with your kids and your loved ones.
I do volunteer at my local animal shelter. I have plenty of data but I can’t show it to you is pure nonsense.
Cool man, go fuck yourself.
Well sure. Who’s gonna cover that funding gap? Not me.
So, what, let the excess or aggressive dogs starve but treat them nicely until they do? Let them run feral?
Or humanely put them down?
Edit: Y’all downvoting me should go volunteer at a local shelter for a while. I love dogs. I absolutely love dogs. But because of irresponsible owners and breeders we often have too many dogs and full shelters. Resources are not infinite.
It is cruel to keep dogs alive in increasingly smaller spaces, or hoard them, as we run out of room because you feel guilty about putting them down.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to rehoming, rescuing, or fostering dogs. Or opposed to shelters in general! I think those practices are important. Our current dog is a rehome.
But even PETA will point out the dangers of making all shelters no-kill, like some states are doing.
Spay and neuter your pets. That’s the real solution here.
Since the 70s massive strides have been made mostly by promoting fixing your dog in a timely fashion including low cost spay and neuter or “last litter” programs where they help you adopt out the puppies and fix the mom so they don’t have another.
Both kills and intake are a small fraction of what they were in the 70s down as much as 80% despite a concurrent increase in population in that time.
Yep, spaying and neutering is the true path forward. End animal homelessness at the source.
Well, I will be honest with you - I’d gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn’t get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don’t have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.