Re: [PyrNet-L] RE: failure of Rescue

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 03/14/2000 5:33:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jack.mowery@asc.mhmr.state.tx.us writes:

> The Forever Home name sounds lovely, and it is what my dogs (and us cats
>  too) have always known they had.  But we simply need a (god, I hate to
>  advocate the passage of more laws, but . . .) law, requiring that any
>  breeder/seller will be required to take back an animal or pay the cost of
>  re-homing/euthanizing.  I will admit that Belle was purchased from what
>  would be called a back-yard breeder.  But I know who I bought her from (a
>  co-worker).  I think anyone who buys a dog, usually knows where they got 
it.
>  We need something in place to make sure those breeders/sellers could be
>  required to take them all back.  

I agree this would be a great solution that would knock out a huge portion of 
the problem, however one must realize that even if such a plan could be 
successfully carried out, there would likely be a number of such breeder 
return dogs being euthanized.

I personally wouldn't go for such a law and I would be willing to pay some 
sort of license fee to be a "registered breeder", IF the law could actually 
be enforced, but there begs the question: How would such a law be enforced, 
and how would enforcing such a law be funded if mandatory breeders licenses 
were not implemented or even if they were implemented but did not generate 
enough income to accomplish this?  We certainly don't need any more 
unenforceable laws on the book.  Too many of the ones we already have 
regarding the proper care and treatment of animals aren't enforced as it is.

Kelley