07-25-2015, 03:14 AM
I'm seeing a lot of emotive language and red tape and little on facts and figures. I know you have good intentions and on some parts I do agree with you, however governments talk in dollars and cents and I think they're unlikely to genuinely respond to something that calls a pet 'baby girl' 'furbabies' and 'angels' and irrelevantly brings in rapists and paedophiles.
"Let’s say that unwanted animals from irresponsible breeders account for 50% of the animals that cause the need for animal control in the first place. That’s half of the need for the animal control departments gone (along with the taxpayer burden for them). That means that the other 50% of animals that find their way to animal control are either abandoned or lost animals. The requirement of microchipping the animals reduces the time it takes for the owners to be found. Say it cuts the time by 70%. That’s 70% less personnel time and, 70% less food needed to care for those animals. Again, major savings on a case by case basis."
You can't just make stuff up. You need actual facts and figures as evidence to support your claims.
Proposal #5. Getting an animal re-microchipped is a waste of time, money and resources and also puts unnecessary stress on an animal. If an animal is properly registered, as it should be when it is initially microchipped, you would only have to update ownership details with the registry.
In most states in Australia it is now mandatory to microchip dogs and cats (before sale or as a condition of registration). We have council registers for pets and there's an annual fee to have your pet registered. There are also optional National pet registers, but I do not know how feasible a mandatory national register would be in the USA. You have 319 million people.
We also have state Acts such as the Domestic Animals Act which covers the legislation and regulations of domestic animals, changes of legislation to Acts is very difficult and takes a long time.
"(The option to wait until the animal reaches puberty is given because the mentality of the animal changes due to hormones. In the case of a dog, if the dog is fixed before puberty, the dog will retain a more puppy like mentality. Allowing the dog to reach puberty gives the dog an adult mentality.)"
I'd like to know where you pulled this from.
Nowhere in there states what is an acceptable number of litters per dog and for breed of dog. Surely there are already breed societies in America?
Why are your suggested proposals allowing any old Tom, D*** and Harry to become a licenced breeder? Is this not contradictory to what you're wanting to prevent?
"To start off with, if you believe you shouldn’t care about the plight of the voiceless, the innocent and, the suffering, I would strongly suggest you reevaluate the parameters of what you consider moral and, your definition of what is considered responsible. But, if you do not wish to do so, I can explain it in terms that will show you it’s impact on your life and, what you care about."
This is condescending.
To sum it up; less emotion, more facts and actual researched figures, re-address your proposals - make them realistic, not idealistic, research what legislation and regulations are already in place, be it at state or council level - use this as a point of change or as evidence for your suggestions. How do other countries tackle these issues? Reference, reference, reference and reference some more. Reputable references.
Fix it up a bit and get in contact with advisory boards in different states if you really want it to make a difference.
"Let’s say that unwanted animals from irresponsible breeders account for 50% of the animals that cause the need for animal control in the first place. That’s half of the need for the animal control departments gone (along with the taxpayer burden for them). That means that the other 50% of animals that find their way to animal control are either abandoned or lost animals. The requirement of microchipping the animals reduces the time it takes for the owners to be found. Say it cuts the time by 70%. That’s 70% less personnel time and, 70% less food needed to care for those animals. Again, major savings on a case by case basis."
You can't just make stuff up. You need actual facts and figures as evidence to support your claims.
Proposal #5. Getting an animal re-microchipped is a waste of time, money and resources and also puts unnecessary stress on an animal. If an animal is properly registered, as it should be when it is initially microchipped, you would only have to update ownership details with the registry.
In most states in Australia it is now mandatory to microchip dogs and cats (before sale or as a condition of registration). We have council registers for pets and there's an annual fee to have your pet registered. There are also optional National pet registers, but I do not know how feasible a mandatory national register would be in the USA. You have 319 million people.
We also have state Acts such as the Domestic Animals Act which covers the legislation and regulations of domestic animals, changes of legislation to Acts is very difficult and takes a long time.
"(The option to wait until the animal reaches puberty is given because the mentality of the animal changes due to hormones. In the case of a dog, if the dog is fixed before puberty, the dog will retain a more puppy like mentality. Allowing the dog to reach puberty gives the dog an adult mentality.)"
I'd like to know where you pulled this from.
Nowhere in there states what is an acceptable number of litters per dog and for breed of dog. Surely there are already breed societies in America?
Why are your suggested proposals allowing any old Tom, D*** and Harry to become a licenced breeder? Is this not contradictory to what you're wanting to prevent?
"To start off with, if you believe you shouldn’t care about the plight of the voiceless, the innocent and, the suffering, I would strongly suggest you reevaluate the parameters of what you consider moral and, your definition of what is considered responsible. But, if you do not wish to do so, I can explain it in terms that will show you it’s impact on your life and, what you care about."
This is condescending.
To sum it up; less emotion, more facts and actual researched figures, re-address your proposals - make them realistic, not idealistic, research what legislation and regulations are already in place, be it at state or council level - use this as a point of change or as evidence for your suggestions. How do other countries tackle these issues? Reference, reference, reference and reference some more. Reputable references.
Fix it up a bit and get in contact with advisory boards in different states if you really want it to make a difference.
