Whilst I sympathise with the background - the shameful and needless euthanisation of unwanted cats and dogs in the USA - I'm afraid that I have some reservations:
I'm not clear what you mean in paragraph 2: "Upon re given the option to either have the animal fixed or, to become a licensed breeder". What does "upon re given..." mean? "When the animal changes hands..."? "Upon being given a pet..."? "Upon being given a pet a second time..."? Or "Upon (something), the pet caretaker shall be given the option..."?
I don't like the word "fixed". That suggests that there is a "fault" needing to be fixed. Reproduction is part of nature and is natural. I agree about the unacceptability of unwanted pets, but "fixed" is not the right word. Sterilisation is the word to use in this situation.
Is it realistic to suggest that a national register must be set up (and policed) for any person wishing his/her pet to have a puppy/kitten? I would imagine that many pet caretakers would regard this as draconian. If people put off the choice between sterilisation/breeding licence, then did not pay the breeding fee upon the birth of offspring, would they be put in prison for non-payment?
Catherine is right on another point. Your proposals might work in some countries where all laws are passed on a national level, but they would not work for those countries where animal laws are passed at a regional/provincial level.
I totally agree about microchipping of pets. This enables animals to be identified quickly and returned to their caretakers if lost.
Realistically, however, I can't see any government anywhere adopting your proposals. They are very restrictive and would require a lot of enforcement (constant checking of databases for compliance and resultant follow-up action by the authorities). There would big tax implications, too. Apart from the salaries of the register staff (checking for compliance nationwide, policing enforcement), you suggest a 50% rebate of sterilisation costs for those on low income. All that money would have to come from somewhere. These considerations are only financial and do not invalidate the moral argument for your proposal, but they do raise questions about whether they stand any chance of ever being considered by any government.
The threat of fines and possible imprisonment for non-payment of fines (where people have put off the option of sterilisation) could increase the numbers of puppies and kittens being illegally and cruelly killed (stuffed in rubbish sacks, thrown into a canal, etc.).
I am sympathetic to your document, as your heart is clearly in the right place. Thank you very much for opening this poll and starting the discussion. But I personally think that the details of the proposals are partly unrealistic and perhaps too restrictive.
I'm not clear what you mean in paragraph 2: "Upon re given the option to either have the animal fixed or, to become a licensed breeder". What does "upon re given..." mean? "When the animal changes hands..."? "Upon being given a pet..."? "Upon being given a pet a second time..."? Or "Upon (something), the pet caretaker shall be given the option..."?
I don't like the word "fixed". That suggests that there is a "fault" needing to be fixed. Reproduction is part of nature and is natural. I agree about the unacceptability of unwanted pets, but "fixed" is not the right word. Sterilisation is the word to use in this situation.
Is it realistic to suggest that a national register must be set up (and policed) for any person wishing his/her pet to have a puppy/kitten? I would imagine that many pet caretakers would regard this as draconian. If people put off the choice between sterilisation/breeding licence, then did not pay the breeding fee upon the birth of offspring, would they be put in prison for non-payment?
Catherine is right on another point. Your proposals might work in some countries where all laws are passed on a national level, but they would not work for those countries where animal laws are passed at a regional/provincial level.
I totally agree about microchipping of pets. This enables animals to be identified quickly and returned to their caretakers if lost.
Realistically, however, I can't see any government anywhere adopting your proposals. They are very restrictive and would require a lot of enforcement (constant checking of databases for compliance and resultant follow-up action by the authorities). There would big tax implications, too. Apart from the salaries of the register staff (checking for compliance nationwide, policing enforcement), you suggest a 50% rebate of sterilisation costs for those on low income. All that money would have to come from somewhere. These considerations are only financial and do not invalidate the moral argument for your proposal, but they do raise questions about whether they stand any chance of ever being considered by any government.
The threat of fines and possible imprisonment for non-payment of fines (where people have put off the option of sterilisation) could increase the numbers of puppies and kittens being illegally and cruelly killed (stuffed in rubbish sacks, thrown into a canal, etc.).
I am sympathetic to your document, as your heart is clearly in the right place. Thank you very much for opening this poll and starting the discussion. But I personally think that the details of the proposals are partly unrealistic and perhaps too restrictive.
