Just a little idea.

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#2
Sounds terrible to me. A lot of working breeds are not AKC and CKC recognized because their parent clubs do not want them to be. A law like that would be the death of many old lines of working dogs.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
315
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Yorkton, Saskatchewan, Canada
#3
Sounds terrible to me. A lot of working breeds are not AKC and CKC recognized because their parent clubs do not want them to be. A law like that would be the death of many old lines of working dogs.
Like what breeds? And what about the parent clubs?? (I don't know a whole lot about all that stuff...)

BTW this isn't my idea, I just heard someone talking about it so don't think I'm for it or anything, lol. I just wanted to see what everyone here thought.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#4
Well, this article has some pretty good reasons why folks don't want their breed AKC recognized. Granted, it's pretty slanted against the AKC, but you can get their points through the bitterness. I am trying to find a somewhat complete list of non-recognized breeds, but all I can find is some articles estimating there are "approximately 400"

http://www.netpets.org/dogs/newsroom/akcfss1.html

A handful of American ones I can think of from the top of my head are:
Catahoula leopard dogs
Alapaha blue blood bull dogs
Chinook
Carolina Dog
Xoloscuintle

Edit: This site has a boatload of breeds listed, most of them very old. Much older than dobes and rotties and shepherds, oh my.

http://www.arba.org/
 
R

RedyreRottweilers

Guest
#5
I do not agree with forced sterilization under any circumstances.

What business does the government have telling me what I can and cannot do with my property?

What is next? Book burning? No red automobiles?
 

Pam111

New Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
3,845
Likes
0
Points
0
#6
I do not agree with forced sterilization under any circumstances.

What business does the government have telling me what I can and cannot do with my property?

What is next? Book burning? No red automobiles?
I agree. While, yes, I would love to see more dogs spayed or neutered, the government treats animals as property in every other law, so this shouldn't be different. Though, I suppose they do tell us what to do with our property in other ways, such as car titling and inspections...hmmm, I guess I see that more as equivalent to dog licensing, though, rather than altering the dog.

Maybe the government could offer some sort of incentive for dog altering?

If there was mandatory spay/neutering, I would not want it to only exclude ACK/CKC dogs. Like a PP said, there are other solid breeding programs that are not registered with them.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#7
I would say not only do I disagree with it, it would make no difference in the big picture. Most of the BYB's I know of have AKC/CKC registrations on their dogs, pet stores selling puppies as well. Orson is AKC registered for example and he came from a major jerkhole.

Open up any news paper and you can find BYB AKC/CKC all the live long day.

Now, if AKC and CKC changed their rules and policies something like this *could* have potential to work...........not that I would agree with it, but it would have more potential at being effective.

But that will never happen just because of the money issues. If the AKC changed their policies they would lose tons of potential registers and they would never have that.

As to why I disagree with it? More restrictions on MY rights, and again............laws only affect the law abiding.
 

Pam111

New Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
3,845
Likes
0
Points
0
#8
I would say not only do I disagree with it, it would make no difference in the big picture. Most of the BYB's I know of have AKC/CKC registrations on their dogs, pet stores selling puppies as well. Orson is AKC registered for example and he came from a major jerkhole.

Open up any news paper and you can find BYB AKC/CKC all the live long day.

Now, if AKC and CKC changed their rules and policies something like this *could* have potential to work...........not that I would agree with it, but it would have more potential at being effective.
That's also a good point. My dogs were registerable ( I just didn't bother with the paperwork), but they are not from quality breeders, I must admit
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#10
Horrible idea. I do not want to own an AKC Aussie (brainless, multicolored Goldens that they are) and many of the other breeds I want are not recognized by the AKC to begin with (Fila, anyone?).

Red summed it up quite well.
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
#11
I agree with it being a bad idea. Many breeds aren't AKC recognized, many parent clubs of AKC breeds don't want their members' dogs involved with AKC - take stock dog border collies and earth dog JRTs for some more common breeds. A lot of breeds working in protection venues aren't registered, some aren't even purebred. Also, registration in any organization doesn't in any way reflect quality.

I also don't want to b e forced to sterilize my pets. There are health benefits and there are health risks associated with it, and it's a decision to be made between me and my vet.

The time spent trying to find legislative ways to combat substandard breeding practices would be better spent educating potential buyers on what to look for.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,299
Likes
0
Points
0
#12
:yikes: Forced sterilization is hardly a "little idea"!!

WAY too intrusive and as others have stated it would be the death of many legitimate non-registered breeds, including working lines of breeds that are otherwise recognized but the working lines are not registered.

Ranches in the Western U.S. and elsewhere strongly depend upon their working line dogs! Even though they are from recognized breeds, these working dogs are not registered with kennel clubs. Most would NOT make good pets but they are tireless workers as ranch hands.

"Mandatory" sterilization would not stop breeding of these dogs because the economic consequences to ranches would be devastating. If allowed to affect these ranchers, the general public WOULD begin to feel those consequences as well. (You wanna pay $50 per lb. for meat because ranchers are forced to find other, more expensive means of herding and guarding their stock?)

I do not agree with forced sterilization under any circumstances.
What business does the government have telling me what I can and cannot do with my property?
What is next? Book burning? No red automobiles?
^^^ Agree ... oh what, about 150% ;)

Maybe the government could offer some sort of incentive for dog altering?
City and municipal governments in many areas already do. Licensing laws in those areas offer reduced yearly fees for licensing of altered dogs as opposed to intact. Sometimes differences in amounts can be staggering, such as $25 yearly to license an altered dog as opposed to $250 yearly for intact dogs. Such laws may make sense in big cities with free-roaming dog problems, but not in rural areas with many working dogs. Just another example of how the very same laws do NOT work everywhere.

Like what breeds? And what about the parent clubs?? (I don't know a whole lot about all that stuff...)
^^^^ ... and this is exactly the problem ... People screaming "there oughta be a law!" when they are woefully uninformed.

A good example would be that extremely short-sighted can't-see-beyond-my-own-little-corner-of-the-world person who suggested that "little idea" to you in the first place. :rolleyes:
Please inform that person.
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
#13
City and municipal governments in many areas already do. Licensing laws in those areas offer reduced yearly fees for licensing of altered dogs as opposed to intact. Sometimes differences in amounts can be staggering, such as $25 yearly to license an altered dog as opposed to $250 yearly for intact dogs. Such laws may make sense in big cities with free-roaming dog problems, but not in rural areas with many working dogs. Just another example of how the very same laws do NOT work everywhere.
Mmmm...$250 a year for licensing?!? I don't call that an incentive plan, I call that forced sterilization. Consider the small scale quality breeder who maybe has four, five, six intact dogs. Now you're talking at least $1000 a year. Many of them can't afford that when compared to $100 if they're sterilized.

What makes sense is educating and outreach. More low-cost spay/neuter options. Around here, I can get a male neutered for something around $50.00 I'm not sure what a female costs.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,299
Likes
0
Points
0
#14
I don't call that an incentive plan, I call that forced sterilization.
Well technically it's not "forced" sterilization ... if you can come up with cash then you can keep intact dogs. But let's call a shovel a shovel ... what it is in reality is a tax penalty for keeping intact dogs. Further, the actual effect of such laws is less overall compliance with licensing. That's why I don't favor such "incentive" plans either. ;)

What makes sense is educating and outreach. More low-cost spay/neuter options.
Exactly ... but especially on the low-cost options. Education alone doesn't do it ... people respond to options that have a positive effect on their wallets.
 

Whisper

Kaleidoscopic Eye
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
13,749
Likes
1
Points
38
Age
31
#15
I would say "feck you" if someone wanted to make that a law.

I love border collies -the working border collie- and I will never buy a BC from an AKC show breeder. There are plenty of reputable breeders who choose other registries for their working bred dogs.
Plus, I'm not a fan of being forced to do anything, especially when it comes to how I take care of my dogs. Two equally responsible, caring dog owners can have a great deal of difference with how they take care of their dogs.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#16
The government just needs to keep its nasty, greedy, lying, sneaking nose out of my dogs. Period.

This kind of crap, like BSL, is just a pandering - and, sadly, a largely successful attempt to keep our attention elsewhere rather than on the sh1t that's really going on.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#18
We do need to find some other way of couching that though, because while it's the absolute truth, it sounds very harsh and sterile, which is NOT the way to combat the touchy-feely emotional propaganda the other side is using. We all know that our dogs mean more to us than we can properly say. But when you start throwing "property rights" around in terms of our rights to our dogs, you give people the impression your dogs mean as much to you as a motorcycle would.

(I'm squaring off with some anti-dock/crop people right now and this is what I'm getting from them.)
 
R

RedyreRottweilers

Guest
#19
The moment dogs graduate from being property we are all sunk.

They don't have to like it, but it is a fact. I OWN my dog, just like I own my van, my clothing, my shoes, etc.

It has NOTHING to do with dogs. It is about MY RIGHTS. This means this type of legislation will have trickle down effect on everyone, even people who don't want to show or breed dogs as a hobby.

:)
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#20
What Zoomer's saying is that we have to dress it up for these numbnutz. The other side is going for the mindless, emotional, knee jerk reaction and no amount of rational, logical, intelligent information and logic is going to penetrate the impact that has, so WE have to devise tactics that will appeal to and break through that segment of the populace.
 

Members online

Top