Dog Problem Continues in Dallas
I’m on record as saying the stray problem in Dallas is out of control and needs to be addressed. (Rod Davis made the case very well in the print version of FB.) As Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia noted yesterday:
Of over 63,000 311 calls in 2007, 24,462 were for loose and aggressive animals.
So I’m glad the Dallas City Council is doing something about it. Doug Bedell, the former DMN investigative sports reporter who now taunts me with how much money he makes at Haynes & Boone, says I’m ill-informed and it’s a bad ordinance. His full explanation of why after the jump.
After agreeing that tethering and the other maltreatment of pets is abhorrent, here’s why the rest of this is a bad law:
– You can’t determine whether a purebred dog is “to standard” by 4 months, so everyone who wants the option to breed will have to pay $500 for the right. We’ve bred boxers for more than 30 years now. We’ve had three litters, and found all great homes or kept the pick. Two litters produced national champions, but we didn’t know the females had the temperament or form that made them candidates for breeding until well after second heat … more than a year into their growth.
– If you have a wonderful cross of, say Lab and German Shepherd, you’re prohibited from breeding. That’s nuts. It’s wrong genetically for the animals as a species. And it’s contrary to our American values.-
– Why should I be required to join a purebred society and pay dues to some strangers who man these organizations? The city doesn’t set those org’s standards for membership, which are all over the map and subject to whimsical swings in mission and stewardship.
– If you have a rescue situation, there’s no leniency for the limit of six dogs or cats or combination thereof, even if it’s a transient situation. Nobody needs six dogs, I agree. But unforeseen circumstances, like our oldest son’s recent death, would put me into violation and allow fines based only on the registrations to my Dallas address.
– Pit bull, Rotty and other puppy mills are already illegal. Shameless profiteers never register their dogs anyway, so the responsible pet owners will pay and the jerks will never be cited. Why aren’t current laws enforced rather than milking the law-abiding public for more fees?
– Here in NW Dallas, we’ve got unlicensed packs of pets roaming through our alleys and the banks of Joe’s Creek at all hours. They kill ducks and geese and generally create mayhem. The only way to get City of Dallas attention is to report them as threatening or to be bitten. The proposed paperwork burden and compliance monitoring required for support of the new ordinance would take even more resources away from an Animal Control Department that is understaffed, overworked and unresponsive. I’ll be glad to pay additional taxes to bolster the service, but not when honest, compliant pet owners are singled out for the load.
18 Comments to “Dog Problem Continues in Dallas”
Leave a Reply
All material copyright © 2008 D Magazine. All rights reserved.
“Contrary to our American values”, that’s rich. Have you noticed that the people complaining most loudly about the city’s efforts to solve what is a pretty horrible situation with animals all happen to be involved in breeding them?
I like pugs.
and Kelly
All the ordinances in the world won’t make a bit of difference. Those who will follow the rules already do, those who don’t don’t give a rat’s hairy hiney. It will not affect the numbers of strays in certains parts of town one iota.
I agree - how do they plan to enforce this? Will the Pooch Police stop me while I’m walking my dog to make sure she’s spayed? Let’s just try to educate and, heaven forbid, offer assistance to those pet owners who are on a budget and can’t afford to spay/neuter.
Mr. Bedell doesn’t mention the 31,537 homeless and stray dogs and cats the Dallas City shelter took in last year, or the fact that 83% of the dogs and 92% of the cats had to be put to death because there weren’t enough homes. We can no longer ignore them. As Dr. Garcia, Mr. Caraway, and others said yesterday we have to come up with a community-wide solution - one that will work and will work quickly. The safety and quality of life of the folks in many of our Council Districts is at risk.
I’d like to see enforcement increased also, but we’re looking at about 500 animals a week - we’re taking them off the street and killing them now because we have no place for them. Enforcement at this point isn’t enough.
Mr. Bedell didn’t mention that the QOL Committee directed Dallas Animal Services to review the fee structure and find a way to reduce that $500 to something a lot more affordable. He also didn’t mention that it costs $ 155 for every animal the shelter ha to handle. If we can stop the reproduction, we can solve the problem without throwing more taxpayer money at it. If we increase enforcement, and that takes an increase in property taxes, aren’t we all in a way subsidizing the breeders?
Does anyone know why breeders are so dead set against registration? In other industries registration implies legitimacy. I’d think they’d want a way to be recognized as a geniune quality breeder rather than a puppy mill or a backyard breeder masquerading as a reputable, professional operation.
It’s often not a matter of whether people can afford to spay or neuter. With male dogs in particular, it’s often solidarity. I chatted with a postman once who asked about about my dog, and he said that he wanted a dog but wouldn’t get one from the SPCA (where I got Jack) because they neuter and, “He might want to get some sometime, hehehe.”
And this guy has a 2-year-old daughter! Talk about needing education…an intact male dog is more likely to be aggressive than a neutered one.
Austin has a chaining law and I can’t say I object to it. Ironically, however, people walk around with their dogs off-leash all the time there. How nice for them, but MY (always leashed) dog is dog aggressive and I’ve had some near-incidents.
There are myriad ways to be a stupid dog owner and ordinances don’t seem to help.
Doug has it right. Shut down the puppy mills (Traders Village, Canton). The bad owners & breeders disregard the laws. I had a near disasterous incident this weekend with my dog on leash & two large loose dogs. Animal control was responsive within 24 hrs, but the people denied they owned the dogs & had moved them across the street to other family members. I have to pay $30 for a license for an intact dog vs. $7 for a neutered one. How many of these loose dogs are licensed? Animal control sends their officers out alone. Have you ever had to face two aggressive dogs much less a pack? Hire more staff & enforce the laws that we have instead of further penalizing the owners who follow the law.
I called 311 last fall, told them there was a stray pit bull roaming the streets at Lemmon and Oak Lawn. Literally just crossing back and forth. They said that someone would respond in 4-6 weeks. So a potentially dangerous animal is cruising around, hopefully it stayed in the same area for 6 weeks without attacking anyone.
I’d like to know how they’re going to check to see if a pet is spayed.
Good intent and ideas; impossible implementation.
Leave the animals and round up the pan handlers. It would be a lot more exciting petting a dog on my way to and from Union Station. I’d even enjoy the time with them during lunch at the fountain in front of Belo.
Doug Bedell has some solid feedback. The “responsible pet owners will pay and the jerks will never be cited” reasoning is typical of any law that’s difficult to implement.
Where’s the righteously indignant blogging against CPS now that 31 teen mothers have been discovered among the 53 teen girls at the West Texas FLDS compound?
…reminding you to have your polygamist sect’s teens spayed or neutered.
In the gay S&M subculture, you don’t even want to know what CPS is code for. Hint: it ain’t “protective.”
I miss Rod Davis.
The fee they are requesting should go to the sheltors to pay for: more control officers, up keep of the buildings, food and vet bills. The city should offer free spay/neuter to those who can not afford it or the problem will continue.
There are NUMEROUS issues with the proposed ordinances, and they’ve only been touched on here. First of all, Sophie - it is not true that an intact male dog is more likely to be aggressive than an altered one. Secondly, spaying and neutering can lead to increased health risks - so it should not be up to the city to tell me that I must get my animals spayed or neutered or face fines. Third, not everyone who owns intact dogs breeds them. We have a former show dog in our home, but we will never breed him. I shouldn’t have to get a breeder’s license just to have him in our home.
Also, it frightens me that the City is proposing these ordinances that so fly in the face of civil liberties and people aren’t alarmed by them. Do you realize that if this ordinance were passed, the city could barge into our home and remove our dog, simply because he is intact? No warrant necessary. That should scare some people. It certainly does me!
I could go on and on…there are myriad reasons why what’s being proposed is a bad idea. I’m truly worried, and I don’t understand why more people aren’t.