On Aug 25, 9:09 am, Julia Altshuler wrote:
Shelly wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "schedule deal." Where I am, vets
flat-out refused to be part of the city's licensing scheme. They
were concerned that folks would not bring their pets in for routine
care if they were afraid the vet would turn them in for failure to
comply with licensing their animals.

They had a good system in Miami. The veterinarian gave the license
right there in the office, collected the tag fee, and passed the
paperwork on to the county. One stop. If the dog never saw a
veterinarian, the county never knew of its existence. If the owner
brought the dog in for anything, the veterinarian gave the required
vaccinations for the tag which he presumably would do anyway.

Up here, the veterinarian gives a sheet of paper called a "rabies
certificate," and the dog owners go to City Hall with the certificate
each January for the tag. If you don't show up the first time, the city
never knows of the dog's existence. The veterinarian doesn't notify the
city. If you don't show up after the first year, the city sends a late
notice to your home, and you can either pay the late fine or tell them
that the dog has died or moved away. I don't know about any enforcement
beyond that. To the best of my knowledge, Animal Control checks out
complaints about barking and biting, not vaccinations and tags.

--Lia

We have a system similar to Miami, our Vets also handle the paperwork
and the fee for the license. I go to a vet in the county over though,
so I get a rabies certificate and then just have to take that in to
either the County Clerk or to any of the local Vet offices to fill out
the license paperwork. After the initial license you can renew
through the mail if you like when they send out the renewal reminder
in the mail. Our veterinarians are not obligated by the county to
handle the license for the dog though, so if you don't want to comply
with the law you are not forced to do so.

Nick

On Aug 27, 1:35 am, "Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

Even a quick assessment is better than none at all. I think most people
would be fairly honest, especially if a questionnaire is written properly.
Just a few questions like:

Just like you THINK compliance doesn't drop when requirements/fees are
increased? Back in that fantasy world again, are we?


1. Has the dog ever bitten anyone? Or attacked another dog? Within the last
year?
2. Was it provoked in any way?
3. Was medical treatment needed or indicated?
4. Does the dog lunge at people or other dogs?
5. Does the dog welcome strangers, or react cautiously or fearfully?
6. Can you safely pet the dog while eating, or take away its food?
7. Has the dog and owner taken obedience classes?
8. Does the dog often meet new people and dogs? How often?
9. How would your vet, trainer, or kennel owner describe the dog's
demeanor?
10. Can your dog play or be walked with other dogs?
11. Is your dog a breed that has been identified with aggression issues?

Most of these are simple questions with verifiable answers. Each "bad"
answer would result in an additional licensing cost, based on weight. Each
"good" answer would reduce the licensing cost. Honest answers could result
in some legal protection for the dog owner, while misrepresentation would
be punishable by a fine, and an increase in liability. Any "incidents"
would result in a higher renewal fee,

You mean like required dog liability insurance found when dogs in
certain areas are declared dangerous?

while "good things", like obedience
training or even a year without incident, would reduce the renewal fee.

I think it could work. I'll write something up and discuss it with my
friend at AC. If anyone has any other ideas, please post them. Just saying
it's idiotic, or whining that it will never work, accomplishes nothing. Do
something positive, or else don't complain when something like BSL bites
you in the butt.

Paul, Muttley, and Lucky

I don't think it will work. The issue with your system is that there
is no way to accurately determine where each individual dog lies on
your wonder scale of dog aggression. In my area, if your dog attacks
a person you are liable for the damage done. You are typically
allowed to keep the dog, although it is labeled as having attacked a
person(which is just a label in their records and does not affect your
legal rights regarding ownership of your dog). The second incident
results in removal of your dog and it is euthanized. It isn't
perfect, and it suffers issues from dishonest people not reporting
incidents, but most of the time there are not repeat offenders.

I still say that anything new should be targeted towards increasing
compliance, not resulting in a decrease in compliance. If AC/
government focuses on increasing compliance and enforcement of
existing laws they will find they don't need more laws instituted to
just not be complied and not enforced.

Nick

On Aug 27, 6:58 am, Shelly wrote:

I'm not in charge of handing out medals, so there's no point in
telling me stories of your heroicism.

--
Shellyhttp://www.cat-sidh.net(the Mother Ship)http://esther.cat-sidh.net(Letters to Esther)

Dangit, I was hoping you could issue me a Rescue-a-Doofus-dog award.

Nick

wrote:

Dangit, I was hoping you could issue me a Rescue-a-Doofus-dog award.

If there are any doofus awards to be given out, I think I should be
first in line. I drove 40 miles and spent $50 to "rescue" two
goldfish. I R Dum.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote in message
...


Even a quick assessment is better than none at all. I think most people
would be fairly honest, especially if a questionnaire is written
properly.

So, if someone answers honestly that their dog is a *slight* bite risk -
assuming they can even recognize it - they will have to pay more. And you
think that with this arrangement that people will be honest? Maybe what you
need is for the neighbors to decide just how dangerous they think the dog is
and the owner pays based on that?

Let's see. If people had to pay for their driver's licenses based on what
they weigh, how much honesty do you think you could expect? And this, like
dog licensing in general, is already an area where people are somewhat less
than by-the-book.

At least I've always *heard* that *some* people may fudge the weight on the
license - just a little bit. And that's just for vanity purposes. As if
the person across the counter cares. Or believes them. How much "fudging"
would they do with money also involved?

I think the only way most people would admit that their dog actually was
aggressive was with a documented ( as in police or courts or insurance
involved) bite. Until then, you'll only get the increased fee afterwards.

And it still all comes back to, who do you think is going to do the policing
of the policy?

And Paul is going to write up a proposal for his idea. Now I know where all
this ridiculous legislation is coming from. Some elected official who just
wanted to prove he was concerned about the dog problem just might listen to
him.

There are already laws on the books about licensing dogs. Let's enforce
them rather than write new ones that are almost impossible to enforce.
There are laws on the books about dangerous dogs. Enforce those laws.

It's really pretty simple - doesn't even require any thought on Paul's part.

Judy

Judy wrote:

So, if someone answers honestly that their dog is a *slight* bite risk -
assuming they can even recognize it - they will have to pay more.

And what does "bite risk" mean? That the dog has growled at
someone? That the dog has nipped but not broken skin? That the dog
has a crazy look in its eyes? That the dog is sometimes fearful,
and you *think* it's possible that she could bite if she felt
cornered and threatened?

And that still doesn't address the issue of getting folks to license
their dogs in the first place. If you want increased voluntary
compliance, making the task more complicated and the penalties
stiffer is not the way to go about it.

At least I've always *heard* that *some* people may fudge the weight on
the license - just a little bit. And that's just for vanity purposes.

Or hair color. The color listed on my license is *not* my natural
color, and the DMV folks have no problem with that.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

On Aug 27, 10:34 am, Shelly wrote:
wrote:
Dangit, I was hoping you could issue me a Rescue-a-Doofus-dog award.

If there are any doofus awards to be given out, I think I should be
first in line. I drove 40 miles and spent $50 to "rescue" two
goldfish. I R Dum.

--
Shellyhttp://www.cat-sidh.net(the Mother Ship)http://esther.cat-sidh.net(Letters to Esther)

Not the farthest I've driven for fish. I drove 75 miles one way to
purchase 4 rare F1 African Cichlids from a fish breeder once. I had
brought along a way to keep the bag warm for the trip home, but didn't
even think about the bag developing a leak halfway there. Luckily I
had purchased a bundle of fish bags from the breeder on a whim("these
could come in handy"). Much to my surprise, those fish bags actually
have come in handy over the years.

Nick

wrote:

I drove 75 miles one way to
purchase 4 rare F1 African Cichlids from a fish breeder once.

Yabbut, those weren't 39 cent goldfish. HTH!


--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

If that were MY sheltie...I'd left there for jail. I'm livid about
what happened to that sheltie, and she's not even mine.

Amazing what people allow done to their dogs just because a "big name"
person is doing it. I was absolutely appalled at the one and only
Sylvia Bishop seminar I attended. As far as I (and a few others,
though we were the minority) were concerned, there was some flat out
abuse going on. I left early, feeling sick. The person who's dog was
getting the worst of it raved and still raves about her. Go figure. :
(

Hope

PS Have you tried doing retrieve work with non-DB objects first to let
that association fade?

CanineDivine spoke these words of wisdom in
ps.com:

Subject: This can't be good news for the pit bull.
From: CanineDivine
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.behavior

If that were MY sheltie...I'd left there for jail. I'm livid about
what happened to that sheltie, and she's not even mine.

Amazing what people allow done to their dogs just because a "big name"
person is doing it.

the thing is, this person did intervene in behalf of her dog, and was
highly criticized for it by the attendees at the seminar.. saying the dog
somehow "deserved it"

I did not attend that seminar. I did not see the dog's behavior. I can't
imagine any dog doing something that would have deserved the obvious
trauma (physical AND mental) that this dog incurred. I also can't imagine
how injuring a dog to that level could possibly make that dog WANT to
retrieve after that horrid experience.


I was absolutely appalled at the one and only
Sylvia Bishop seminar I attended.


good info

I'll add her to my list of seminars NOT to attend.

As far as I (and a few others,
though we were the minority) were concerned, there was some flat out
abuse going on. I left early, feeling sick. The person who's dog was
getting the worst of it raved and still raves about her. Go figure. :
(

A lot of people came away from the Sandy Ludwig seminar raving about her
too. Seeing the victim of her seminar.. I now realize that rave reviews
really mean nothing. They are a matter of perspective.


I think of that poor sheltie and I'm still livid. Last week, I was having
dinner with a group that all attended the Sandy Ludwig seminar. They were
raving about the experience, and I looked at the owner of the Sheltie that
was injured, and I mentioned to her, in front of all of them, that i see
her injuries had finally healed. The rest looked at me, and asked what I
was talking about, and I made it clear to them that I had seen this poor
dog the day AFTER the seminar. And without a word, I looked at the dog and
asked the owner WHAT HAPPENED to your DOG?

And she explained the injury was done by Sandy Ludwig.

The rest looked at me and denied it, claiming the owner was just
protesting.

I looked at them and said.. I noticed there was a problem with the dog.
Her tongue was swollen and badly bruised to the point of being Dark
Purple. You couldn't miss the injury.

This was NOT whining on the part of the owner. The dog truly WAS injured.

At least I was able to give the owner satisfaction that someone else
agreed with her that her dog had been abused.


I'm still livid thinking about that poor little dog.

Hope

PS Have you tried doing retrieve work with non-DB objects first to let
that association fade?



Yes we are.