New Pet Ordinance here in Albuquerque

[DaisySunshine]

Below is a new article from a local TV station.

New pet ordinance becomes law
Last Update: 05/23/2006 10:51:47 AM

By: Reed Upton

After ten hours of debate at two previous meetings, the Albuquerque City Council approved a massive overhaul of the city’s animal control ordinance Monday night.

The new ordinance, sponsored by City Councilor Sally Mayer, is designed to push Albuquerque toward being one of the most humane cities in the nation. Mayor Martin Chavez has said that he would like to eliminate euthanasia at city animal control shelters during his term.
“We kill 350 pets a week at the shelter and this is a first step to address that problem,” said Mayer.

Mayer’s proposal mandates that all pets be spayed or neutered by the age of six months. There is an exception for breeders, who must pay a $150 fee per intact animal and limit their animals to one litter per year.

Also by the age of six months pets must be either microchipped or tattooed with their owners contact information so that animal control can reunite lost animals with their owners.

The measure passed on a six-to-three vote.

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewe...25899&cat=HOME

The city council met three times before they were able to pass this ordinance. The mayor hasn't signed it yet but is expected too. It will go into affect sometime in August.

The mayor's goal is to create a 'live exit' city. I don't see how that would be possible. Not all animals are adoptable as much as I want them to be.

And my three INDOOR cats have to be microchipped. Fortunately we have 6 months after the law goes into affect to get it done. You guys can yell at me, but they aren't vaccinated either. I don't see the point of vaccinating indoor cats. But if the law tells me too I will.

In theory, I like the limits they have put on breeders but how the city would ever enforce it is beyond me. We have had some very serious problems with puppy mills here in town.

I will post more about this as information start coming out. I found a pdf file for the new ordinance but it wasn't complete. It also hasn't been posted on the city's website yet.

[Dogsareme]

Wow...

That is intresting. I wonder if it will work. Do you know if they are going to be getting someone to monitor all the people and all there pets???

In some ways I have to say that sounds like a great idea, It's just hard to say weather or not it will work. It's a good idea because it should help cut down on the people who don't spay and neuter, but maybe not because spaying and neutering is more then the $150 you have to pay to keep them intact.
I do think it is a good idea to limit breeders to one litter a year (expecially puppymillers) but what about the breeders who sometimes have 2 females and do one litter a year for both of them? I wonder how they will take that? And also will they be enforcing this once again with inspections??

That is that part I find hard to believe. They can pass that law, but can they do the up keep??? It would be really easy to have a dog and not get any of that stuff done and still not get caught.

I don't think it is right however to force people to microchip there pets. Maybe it seems silly, but I am just paranoid about it. They have not been around long enough to see if there are any damaging effects and I sure don't feel comfortable having a chip injected into my dog. I do and would however agree with the dog tags ideas and having them registered. Then maybe they can start billing the owners who's dogs run free and get caught by the pound and refuse to pick them up. I think that would be fair.

Keep us updated with what is going on. It's very intresting a place is trying to pass such a law.

[calgal]

ALL puppy mills need to be stopped!!!!! This bill is a step in the right direction.

[linnie]

In NSW the council actually goes around ank does a door knock to check how many dogs you have and also you then have to register them if they arnt already. They charge a large amount for intact dogs.
I personally think if they could make this work in that city it would be great. But I am sure you would have to employ a team to monitor it

[Carrie]

I think it's way too much of an invasion of privacy and too much government intervention. Neglect and mistreatment of animals should be punished but otherwise, as much as it sounds like it would cut down on over population, I don't think it will work as a practical application. Sometimes we have to give up certain things in order to live in a freer society. This would be just one more way that the government is interferring in citizens' lives. Education, perhaps some government sponsering or help with neutering/spaying costs could be implimented but for government to force people in their private lives that way, when it is not even a political issue, to me is just wrong and goes against my principles.

[Sardukar]

These are laws that already exist here in Australia. Every dog must be chipped and registered. They help reduce animal cruelty. What is your problem? Laws are designed to protect people, and now animals. In no way does it invade your privacy or reduce your freedom to do anything. If you cannot afford to register or microchip, or desex your dog then you shouldn't have one. Just like if you cannot abide by the road rules you should not drive.

[Carrie]

My problem is that some group of people shouldn't have the right to tell another person how many dogs they can breed UNLESS there is abuse or mistreatment of an animal. The analogy of not abiding by rules of the road when driving is not a good one. Dangerous drivers kill other people. A dog breeder who breeds twice a year doesn't harm anyone and doesn't contribute to the over population of dogs and cats. If you want your government cramming regulations and control down your throat, go ahead and vote that way.

[Sardukar]

My analogy is perfect, because it is describing abiding and following laws set down that are there for a reason. If you have a problem with the laws, say, you want to breed more than 1 group of dogs a year, then maybe you can take it up with the council or state govt (whoever sets the laws) and suggest a change.

If you want your government cramming regulations and control down your throat, go ahead and vote that way.

Thats also a pretty poor statement; we live in a society that has laws and these laws and regulations are there for a reason. Laws change as the circumstances change and your gunna have to deal with that otherwise your gunna struggle in this modern world of ours. Anything to help reduce the amount of incidents related to animal cruelty is a positive and stating simply that you believe it limits your rights isn't helping at all.

[Carrie]

I'm not against all laws or regulation. Of course not. I am just against over involvement, over the top interference, over regulation by a government and I think that this is case which is just that. JMO.

[bigdoglover]

Carrie, do you think that limiting the number of dogs being bred each year would at least help in reducing the numbers in shelters?

[Carrie]

Sure it would. But I still don't think that reputable breeders are the problem. Puppy miills should be shut down because they mistreat animals. I think the vast number of dogs are bred by puppy mills where they breed them by the thousands. As far as regular people who are careless and let their intact dogs loose, I don't even know if they are the big contributors.

Also, why do people give up their dogs when they thought they'd like a dog in the first place? Because they don't know how to raise them. They become nuissances. That angle could be addressed with more education getting out there on how to raise a pup before getting one. There certainly isn't enough of that, not that it should be forced either, but made more widely available.

[DFrost]

Other than whether you are for it or against it is about the only debatable thing. It's our system of government. How many people contacted thier city council person? How many people attended the city meetings and let thier voice be heard. My guess would be, the ones that wanted it, did more work than those that were against it. It generally how the system works.

DFrost

[bigdoglover]

Carrie....Ok, now I understand where you are coming from
That's why I asked!! LOL

[RIo&Nickysmommy]

The sad thing is education is great but the people who need the education do not want to hear or learn it. Look at the dogs they showed smuggled over the US boarders from Mexico. What I would consider normal intelligent people bought these dogs. Maybe these new laws are extreme but no-body listens when they want that cute little puppy. Most obviously dont care otherwise that giant smuggling ring from Mexico for dogs would not be happening. Sad that real breeders are being penalized for these Puppymills, smugglers.. We do need laws maybe this may not be totally the best- but to me something is better then nothing. Most breeders I have known do also alot of charity work helping homeless dogs find homes and education. But I think some laws have to be intact to stop over population of unwanted animals.
Rio&Nickysmommy

[Carrie]

You're right Rio...that there are these kinds...where education won't matter at all. It is a sad thing. Those puppy millers and smugglers ought to be taken out an shot by a firing squad.

Carrie....Ok, now I understand where you are coming from
That's why I asked!! LOL

Yeah.....that's my staunch conservative view about things. I can't help myself. LOL.

(It's like the gun laws. Punish the criminals but don't penalize regular citizens.)