Idea - Non-Neuter Fee

Evac101

Just wondered if others would feel positively toward this or negatively...

The idea would be that non-neutered dogs would be subject to an additional fee above the normal cost of licensing. Not a huge amount but not so trivial as to cause people to not bother neutering as the maths didn't warrant it - a suggestion would be around the 30-40 euro a year mark. Dogs wouldn't be subjected to this until over 1 year old (preventing the need to pay it for a dog incapable of breeding). Keeping the money within the pounds/shelters 'ecosystem' would mean any dog which pays the fee is contributing towards dog welfare and neutering to avoid the cost reduces the demand on those support organisations. Have it paid at the same time as the annual license fee and track the dogs using that system as well. *having it contributing towards reducing the cost of neutering in Vets in general would be an elegant way to use it*

I realise that the worst offenders regarding licensing are also likely to be the worst offenders regarding uncontrolled/unplanned breeding but I also think that a system like this, with weighty fines for avoidance would help the current situation and, hopefully, provide a tool for reducing the number of puppy farms in existence as the additional cost might give the owners a little more pause for thought or, in the case of non-compliance on their parts, facilitate fining them out of existence.

Just an idea to help address something which I'm sure a lot of us are concerned with already - feel free to point out the holes (or at least the ones I haven't pointed out myself) and suggest improvements as the mood takes you..

are you serious

I think this is an crazy idea.

Owning two dogs which are show dogs and by the guidelines of showing they must be a full specimen of the breed meaning both must not be spayed/neutered. I would be against this additional fee.

I have no other flaws which I can find other than those you have pointed out. I would add though that I would think even less would pay the initial licence fee if they had not got their dog spayed/neutered already resulting in even less money being taken in for licence fee's!

toadfly

I think it's a great idea. They need proper fines for not having a licence, thinks it's something like €30 now.

Garkane if you decide to show your dogs this would just be another charge for doing that.

are you serious

TillyGirl your right the fine is €30 on the spot, in addition on a conviction in District Court it is a maximum fine of up to €1269.74 and/or up to 3 months in prison.

toadfly

garkane wrote: »

TillyGirl your right the fine is €30 on the spot, in addition on a conviction in District Court it is a maximum fine of up to €1269.74 and/or up to 3 months in prison.

Has that ever happened?

Cherry Blossom

The only people who would pay it are people who show or responsible owners who don't neuter for health reasons. People who don't neuter outside of that generally speaking don't want to pay for it, they also don't pay for dog licences. It would just be another unenforceable law that would put more cost on those that are responsible.

are you serious

TillyGirl wrote: »

Has that ever happened?

I've no doubt there has been people fined more than the €30 but the imprisonment part I doubt has ever happened. I will try find out more in the next few days about that.

Wibbs

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The only people who would pay it are people who show or responsible owners who don't neuter for health reasons.

This. There is plenty of scientific evidence that neutering increases the risk for quite a number of conditions, some very serious and can affect the longevity of pets.

Evac101

I'm aware of the basics of this Wibbs and in fact there's a very interesting study linked in a previous thread regarding the relative likelihood of those conditions occurring in neutered versus un-neutered pets with a break down in some cases regarding the age of neutering. Like I said, this has given me a very basic idea of the issues which can arise from neutering but no where in depth enough for me to be able to say with any surety on a breed by breed (or gender by gender) basis which is the better choice....

However, the problem these days in Ireland isn't pets suffering from neutering causing issues but an over-abundance of puppies. There's always the case for a Vet provided 'exemption' letter or whatever in special cases, in general however it's seems likely (imo) that the majority of dogs being neutered is a good thing?

evilmonkee

As has been said , I feel this would only affect responsible owners.

Personally my bitch is spayed and I have a dog licence.

My dad's dog is not neutered, not bred, not shown, he does not agree with neutering for personal reasons.
He has had dogs all his life and none have fathered pups, He has managed to avoid this for 40 years with all dogs being un-neutered males.
Further to this his dogs have gotten regular health screenings thoroughout their lives, becoming more frequent as they got older.
I feel that it would be very unfair to force someone in this situation to pay an extra cost when he feels it is morally wrong to neuter but does everything in his power to ensure that no pups are fathered and that any health conditions would be caught early in his dogs.

The problem with laws like this are that responsible people pay the price, while the people you try to stop do not.

I feel that the money, time and effort would be better spent by passing laws regarding puppy farming, providing power to ISPCA's and following through with this laws.

Wibbs

Evac101 wrote: »

I'm aware of the basics of this Wibbs and in fact there's a very interesting study linked in a previous thread regarding the relative likelihood of those conditions occurring in neutered versus un-neutered pets with a break down in some cases regarding the age of neutering. Like I said, this has given me a very basic idea of the issues which can arise from neutering but no where in depth enough for me to be able to say with any surety on a breed by breed (or gender by gender) basis which is the better choice....

Age of neutering appears to have the biggest impact. Under a year of age in particular. Male dogs appear to have the most problems arising from gonad removal. As for better choice, double the risk of bone cancer would be an unacceptable risk for me personally. Increased risks in other areas just add to it. TBH E what really grinds my gears is the plainly unscientific stuff that can be found within the more strident official pro neuter camp. Ditto with yearly (viral) vaccination protocols all the way down to canine nutrition. Some of the stuff propounded by actual trained professionals in the field is at best uniformed, at worst near quackery.

However, the problem these days in Ireland isn't pets suffering from neutering causing issues but an over-abundance of puppies. There's always the case for a Vet provided 'exemption' letter or whatever in special cases, in general however it's seems likely (imo) that the majority of dogs being neutered is a good thing?

OK we're told that neutering will reduce the amount of unwanted dogs out there and it does seem logical, but let's step back a second and ask ourselves would it in reality? Well just ask some questions anyway. Bear with me. :) OK how many dogs in pounds and rescues were born as a result of "accidents" where intact males got to intact females*? How many were born as planned births by owners, breeders or more likely puppy farms? I'd say the latter myself. How many were actually unwanted in the first place? The puppy farmers seem to do a roaring trade and sell their "stock" so the want appears to be there. How many end up unwanted because the owners got tired of them? Quite a few I'd imagine. Neutering would do very little to nothing to answer those questions. Puppy farmers wouldn't neuter anyway, so that huge area of pup production wouldn't be stopped.

IMHO neutering is pushed and pushed hard because it seems logical and is repeated often and it looks like we're doing something. A meme if you'll pardon the cliche. I ask regardless of the health implications, is it actually logical and actually practical? I'd put good money that if blanket neutering went on as some suggest we'd still need pounds and rescues. We appear to have many more unwanted dogs today than a generation ago, yet many many more dogs are neutered today. 18 years ago with my last pup, not one vet I attended mentioned neutering, a few months ago with my new pup and two were gangbusters for the procedure. The first wanted to do it when he was only a few months old. One would expect to see a drop off because of this change, not an increase. It would be my personal take that the effect of nuetering on the overall dog population is actually quite small.

IMHO if you want to reduce the amount of dogs in pounds, go to the source of those dogs, the breeders, especially the backyard breeders. Then go to the ultimate source, the potential owners, the people who want to buy a dog. Massive increase in legislation for the breeders and enforcement. Education and increase in legislation and enforcement for irresponsible owners. Then you may get somewhere.




*much more likely with free roaming cats, so neutering would likely affect a bigger change with them.

Evac101

A well thought out and 'argued' post Wibbs, though I think it exposes the primary fault in both our trains of thought which is that there doesn't seem, on a cursory look on the interwebs, to be any information from the various rescues/pounds on where the pups/dogs they're responsible for are coming from. Without that, I guess, there's no way for either of us to give a well researched suggestion for a way to address the situation.

I will say that it was very enjoyable to debate rather then argue regarding a subject like this

average_runner

Dont think the change in licence will make a difference.

Most people on here would have their dog licenced and if their dogs arent neutered they are looking after their dogs like a child, been good owners.

Problem is the minority of people that dont neutered dogs dont have license and let their dogs roam the streets

homerhop

average_runner wrote: »

Problem is the minority of people that dont neutered dogs dont have license and let their dogs roam the streets

Yup, girl down the road from me like that, has a few dogs, always on the road and the little bitch is always in pup. Just had a litter a few weeks ago, poor little mites were so hungry they were in my yard eating the bird seed on the ground. Went in and got a packet of rashers and fed them. No amount of reporting is going to change a person like that, they will just keep getting another and another no matter how many times dogs are taken or court appearences.

Discodog

It is a good idea & has been suggested many times before. A proposal was submitted as part of the Dog Breeding Bill. It is easy to implement in that your Vet could stamp the application form to confirm microchipping, vaccination & neutering. There could be a discount for each. There could also be a substantial discount for anyone taking a rescue dog.

But it fails because of the poor uptake on licenses & in many areas, the likelihood of never being prosecuted. Now that the license has increased to €20 it is pointless getting one if the fine remains at €30.

Show dog owners & breeders may be responsible owners but the problem in Ireland is an overproduction of pups. Breeders contribute to this & many pedigree dogs end up being dumped. As the owner of a un-neutered male I would have no problem paying more if it helped to control overall numbers.

A tax on pet products would be a far more effective way to raise revenue than dog licensing.

Cherry Blossom

You appear to be confusing show dog owners and breeders with back yard breeders and puppy farms. When I first contacted a breed club here the first thing that happened was for me to be offered a 10 month old pup that was being re-homed as it had been returned to the breeder, there are some that don't take their dogs back but the vast majority do. Why should there be a discount for rescue dogs? This wouldn't in any way prevent them from being put there in the first place, nor would it have any impact on a persons decision to take on a rescue dog.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

You appear to be confusing show dog owners and breeders with back yard breeders and puppy farms. When I first contacted a breed club here the first thing that happened was for me to be offered a 10 month old pup that was being re-homed as it had been returned to the breeder, there are some that don't take their dogs back but the vast majority do. Why should there be a discount for rescue dogs? This wouldn't in any way prevent them from being put there in the first place, nor would it have any impact on a persons decision to take on a rescue dog.

In any system there will be winners & losers. We have to look at the big picture rather than influential minorities, some of whom shackled the DBEB. Even responsible breeders make money from their dogs - the license may be a deductible business expense. A discount for a rescue dog is valid because by taking a rescue you are reducing the problem. It would be a small recognition of the often extra effort made by people who rehome a dog. Also they are reducing the overall burden on Pounds & Wardens which are funded by the license fee.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

In any system there will be winners & losers. We have to look at the big picture rather than influential minorities, some of whom shackled the DBEB.

I assume you have some proof of this allegation?

Discodog wrote: »

Even responsible breeders make money from their dogs - the license may be a deductible business expense.

The breeder would not be the person paying the licence, the new owner would.

Discodog wrote: »

Also they are reducing the overall burden on Pounds & Wardens which are funded by the license fee.

The dog will still have had to go through this system in order to ensure legal ownership has been transferred, perhaps not physically but they are still counted in their statistics. I still don't see why the onus should be on the responsible minority who don't add to the problem (i.e. people who take on rescue dogs and those sourced properly and looked after properly elsewhere). Not putting these in the same group is only your personal opinion imo. Are you including the not so reputable 'rescues' in your plan - there is a minority of those out there as well. My dog is the only one in 3 mile radius that is either neutered or properly contained - my neighbour has 2 they took from the pound, both intact and running around the countryside, they are certainly not reducing the problem but by your proposal would be entitled to a discount on licensing.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I assume you have some proof of this allegation?

"In the letters, the now taoiseach asked Gormley, who is currently finalising the legislation on puppy farming, if he intended to limit the number of dogs that could be kept by the Bolands for breeding purposes, one of the measures designed to close their operation.
“They are heavily involved in the dog breeding business and would literally have hundreds of bitches for breeding purposes. They maintain that if they had to reduce the number of dogs, this would ruin their business,” wrote Cowen."


http://www.pedigreedogs.ie/cowen-took-up-case-of-disgraced-puppy-farm-513/

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The breeder would not be the person paying the licence, the new owner would.

But the new owner would have a choice to neuter their dog & get a reduction or leave it entire & make money from it.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I still don't see why the onus should be on the responsible minority who don't add to the problem (i.e. people who take on rescue dogs and those sourced properly and looked after properly elsewhere). Not putting these in the same group is only your personal opinion imo. Are you including the not so reputable 'rescues' in your plan - there is a minority of those out there as well. My dog is the only one in 3 mile radius that is either neutered or properly contained - my neighbour has 2 they took from the pound, both intact and running around the countryside, they are certainly not reducing the problem but by your proposal would be entitled to a discount on licensing.

As animal lovers we should all be prepared to take responsibility because it is the animals that suffer & not the owners. One of the reasons why Ireland has such an appalling record is because the majority do not take ownership of the problem. Many animal lovers would willingly pay a bit more if they knew that it was going to reduce the number of dogs being killed. Someone has to pay. The money has to come from somewhere.

To qualify for a discount the dog would have to have come from a registered rescue ie one that is in receipt of a grant so the dog will of been neutered & microchipped. Anyone taking a Pound dog could be charged a deposit that is returnable once the dog is neutered & chipped.

But in any event any changes are very unlikely to happen because the majority won't lobby for them. Once you deduct the impact of one new rescue from the Pound figures there are no signs of a real improvement.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

"In the letters, the now taoiseach asked Gormley, who is currently finalising the legislation on puppy farming, if he intended to limit the number of dogs that could be kept by the Bolands for breeding purposes, one of the measures designed to close their operation.
“They are heavily involved in the dog breeding business and would literally have hundreds of bitches for breeding purposes. They maintain that if they had to reduce the number of dogs, this would ruin their business,” wrote Cowen."

The Boland's do not breed show dogs or working dogs - he describes his occupation as 'farmer'.

Discodog wrote: »

But the new owner would have a choice to neuter their dog & get a reduction or leave it entire & make money from it.

The new owner may wish to show the dog and not breed from it, you can't show a neutered dog. They may also choose not to neuter it in the best interests of the dog, I don't plan to neuter my male pup until he is at least 2 years old.

Discodog wrote: »

As animal lovers we should all be prepared to take responsibility because it is the animals that suffer & not the owners. One of the reasons why Ireland has such an appalling record is because the majority do not take ownership of the problem. Many animal lovers would willingly pay a bit more if they knew that it was going to reduce the number of dogs being killed. Someone has to pay. The money has to come from somewhere.

I agree - which is why the licensing fee should apply to everyone, this is a serious contradiction to what you already said which was that people who rescue should get an additional discount - not because the dog is vaccinated or neutered but because it is rescued. Like I already said, a reduction on licence fees for dogs that are rescued will not have any bearing on a persons decision as to where they get their dog, in fact it just decreases the amount of money raised by license fees which doesn't go towards animal welfare anyway so your point is null and void.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I agree - which is why the licensing fee should apply to everyone, this is a serious contradiction to what you already said which was that people who rescue should get an additional discount - not because the dog is vaccinated or neutered but because it is rescued. Like I already said, a reduction on licence fees for dogs that are rescued will not have any bearing on a persons decision as to where they get their dog, in fact it just decreases the amount of money raised by license fees which doesn't go towards animal welfare anyway so your point is null and void.

None of the license fee goes to animal welfare. Anyone taking a rescue will of already paid some contribution to it's welfare as well as making the Warden's job easier. I think that a reduction could easily make someone consider a rescue dog. I see nothing wrong in offering an incentive to people to rehome & reduce the overall numbers killed rather than buying & increasing them.

The licensing fee would still apply to everyone but the majority of responsible owners would be rewarded & the less responsible owners made to pay more to cover the potential costs of their actions.
The only way of reducing the numbers being killed is to prevent overproduction & encourage rehoming & responsible ownership.

I wonder how the licensing figures will compare between 2011 & 2012 ? I suspect that the price rise might end up generating less revenue.