Tampabay: Charge for intact dogs just good sense

Proposed Amendment to Hillsborough County Animal Ordinance No. 00-26: Section 45: Irresponsible Dog Owners.

1. Owners who fail to neuter or spay their dogs due to laziness, apathy, carelessness or some ridiculous obsession with dog prowess will be fined the going cost of the current designer dog. (See: Boxerdoodle, Chiweenie, Schnoodle, Sheltidoodle, et al.)

1A: Said owners will also be assigned one week of dog-doo duty at a local shelter for unwanted animals.

That's how I would write it. Hillsborough County is considering some good if slightly less radical ideas for changing the rules of dog ownership.

The County Commission got to talking about this after the latest dog-bite horror story, a Plant City toddler who was helping feed the family dogs with his great-grandma when he was attacked and mauled by one of them, a pit bull.

This isn't anything new. Just this week, the commission gave a commendation to a woman named Angel Perez for stopping to help a little boy being attacked by a pack of pit bulls.

As happens when it comes to people and their pets (and in this case, breeders and their business), some folks are already riled. (Note to pit bullterrier, Rottweiler and German shepherd enthusiasts who have been peppering commissioners with e-mails about how cuddly their dogs really are: No one is recommending a ban on specific breeds.)

Turns out three out of four dog bites come from unfixed (or "intact") dogs, most of them male.

So commissioners are considering a yearly fee for anyone who fails to spay or neuter a dog, and a fee for each litter. At one point, they talked about fees of up to $150.

While the aim is to reduce dog bites, the obvious benefit is fewer unwanted dogs. Hillsborough Animal Services had to euthanize 29,000 unwanted animals last year. Yes, that many zeros.

Maybe you live in a neighborhood where a loose dog means the neighbor's blow-dried Lhasa apso sniffs around the cul-de-sac for a while. But in a lot of places, it's a stray who is hungry or menacing or afraid. It means a dog having litter after litter of unwanted pups.

The prospect of paying that fee would surely spur some dog owners who just haven't gotten around to it. (Cost should be no excuse - the county has a voucher program for low-income residents at participating vets.) Those who want their dogs to have puppies, or to sire them, can pay.

And the prowess crowd? Guys. You can't buy your dog a beer when he turns 21, either. Get over it.

Other good sense proposals on the table include a pro-active animal control team out in the neighborhoods, dog bite prevention programs in schools and a searchable database of dog bite incidents.

Everyone agrees education is key. But as County Commissioner Kevin White pointed out, some people don't want to be educated.

An ordinance making sure pet owners act responsibly or pay the price surely will get their attention.

Proposed ordinance, continued: Along with paying a fee for each litter of puppies, breeders (and those who buy from them) will be offered a complimentary tour of a local animal shelter to view lots of really cute homeless dogs who already exist.

Share your thoughts on this story

Read our guidelines for comments

Comments on this article

by opposed	04/30/07 09:24 AM
Yes it could hurt. Those you are really trageting (let ther dogs run). Probably don't have tags. Will hid their litters or worse kill the puppies at birth. Only responsible breeders that carefully plan and register their litters will always pay.

by Teresa	04/13/07 11:45 AM
*80.9% of dogs in this county are sterilized,19.1% are intact.This is an attempt to induce public fear and increase revenues.To imply that intact dogs are dangerous and bite more often than spayed & neutered dogs,is FALSE information.Know the FACTS.

by Ann	04/09/07 09:55 PM
shawn u obviously don't know u'r facts.Labs r not vicious dogs.I have owned many and never did any one of them bite a damn thing.Labs are widely owned because of their loving nature they don't have aggressive tendencies unless the breeder sucked.

by AnnH	04/09/07 09:51 PM
I see no reason for this kind of garbage.I refuse to fix my very expensive hunting dogs because someone else can't take care of their own dog.Labs are not the #1 on the bite list.Pit Bulls ARE.My labs have never bitten anything they aren't supposed 2

by Sara	04/06/07 09:21 PM
I hope that to back up this ordinance, the local AC will check newspapers and grocery store bulletin boards for pet sale notices, and then track down the backyard breeders and puppy millers who are the real problem, rather than ethical pet breeders.

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:59 PM
P.S. I have two dogs and both have been 'fixed' so I am not biased.

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:56 PM
The same rationale as this would be for the city to charge people $150 for driving a red car. Red cars are stolen more than any other color, therefore they bring the criminal element to our community. Does that make sense? Of course not!

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:52 PM
Lab bites are the most common because labs are the most commonly owned.

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:49 PM
Fines for strays would address the entire issue which is loose wandering dogs. People would make greater efforts to fill in those holes or keep a watchful eye as the open the front door to keep their pet inside.

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:48 PM
Bites on children are reported more commonly from labs than any other dog. You think of them as lovable and safe. They see the child as equal or lesser and the attack is a natural test of place in the heirarchy.

by Shawn	04/06/07 07:45 PM
The fine should apply to a loose dog found by animal services. A wandering or aggressive dog is not solely so because it is intact. Fear, hunger, etc can lead a dog to stray and be agressive when weary of those it encounters.

by Lauren	04/06/07 07:26 PM
... with unwanted pets, many purebreds. I don't believe in "designer" breeds. They're just another way for people to make a buck. They're not purebred & don't benefit the breeds in any way. I say more laws to make backyard breeders nonexistant!!!!!

by Lauren	04/06/07 07:23 PM
Neutering all pets will not only reduce the risk of agression, but it will extend their lives as well. RESPONSIBLE breeders (those who only breed to better the quality of the animal) shouldn't have a problem with this law. Shelters are overloaded....

by Linda	04/06/07 07:11 PM
Columnists who fail to do their homework, & do not research the success of mandatory spay/neuter legislation (I'll save you the work--it's not successful) should turn in their journalism degrees. I can't believe this came from the St. Pete Times.

by Ace	04/06/07 04:53 PM
As usual, radical AR types want everything altered -- even when millions of people responsibly own INTACT dogs across the US. Enforce laws on the books instead of making more. Fine those with loose dogs, for instance. Keep EDUCATING, not LEGISLATING

by Nancy	04/06/07 03:38 PM
If these dog owners are to irresponsible to keep their dogs under control, what makes you think that they will pay this fee? Are you going to mark dogs w/big serial numbers to keep track of who has paid? Get real, don't penalize me for others issues.

by Heather	04/06/07 02:55 PM
All dog owners should pay if you do not neuter or spay your pets. Our counties should be ashamed that we are killing 29,000 unwanted animals a year. It is just disgusting. If you don't like the laws, then you're shouldn't own a pet.

by Anna	04/06/07 02:12 PM
This is ridiculous. Studies show that altered females are MORE aggressive than intact ones, and NO scientific studies support the idea that intact males are more aggressive than altered ones.

by Katie	04/06/07 02:07 PM
All responsible owners should have their animal spay/neutered. If you charge for any intact dog or cat EVERY year it will hit home. Breeders should be licensed and regulations about the number of puppies/kittens produced should be limited too.

by Andrea	04/06/07 01:59 PM
I'm confused, you want breeders to pay fines because strays are breeding? What about the individuals that turned their dog loose to become a stray? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their own actions?

by bestuvall	04/06/07 01:51 PM
Next time you or someone you love becomes pregnant you should be "offered" a complimentary tour of the closest foster home to see all the cute kids who already exist. Couldn't hurt,right? Breeders are NOT the problem. Shelter numbers are DOWN not up

by bestuvall	04/06/07 01:50 PM
by Heidi 04/06/07 10:02 AM I agree with the fine. If you can't afford to care for a dog...then you shouldn't have one Heidi: does this apply to kids too?

by Sandy	04/06/07 01:39 PM
What about cats? How many of those 29,000 animals put down last year were unwanted, stray or abandoned cats? It should go for both cats and dogs.

by Blinky	04/06/07 01:31 PM
Please extend this Ordinance to include certain two-legged animals as well. Help control the criminal element. Have your convicted felon spayed or neutered.

by Terri	04/06/07 01:20 PM
Once again, the responsible pet owner is penalized for the ignorance of others. This is not the right solution!

by laura	04/06/07 01:15 PM
Some intact dogs are in yards where they belong. Being forced to spay your dog is a step farther than being encouraged. hmmmmmmmmmmm. What's up with this?? why???

by Shirl	04/06/07 01:07 PM
I fail to see how this ordinance will change the outcome of the dog-bite problem. Irresponsible pet owners will continue to be irresponsible. As is becoming the norm in society, the responsible people will end up paying for others' irresponsibility.

by Barbara	04/06/07 12:52 PM
In the interest of clarity it should be pointed out that of those 29,000, approximately 11,000 were dogs. But we shouldn't expect a reporter to be clear. Only a small percentage of those dogs were purebred, which dilutes your argument even further.

by Lisa	04/06/07 12:50 PM
Suzie-Q, you've got it all wrong. It's not just breeders and concern for their business who are in riled up. I take great care of my intact show dogs and am a responsible owner. Leave me alone and go after the irresponsible owner...you MORON.

by Shell	04/06/07 12:34 PM
Actually there is absolutely no evidence supporting one breed is more likely to bite than any other. However there is evidence that in reported dog bites, the overwhelming majority of dogs were intact. But to punish responsible pet owners is unjust.

by Ken	04/06/07 12:00 PM
First time ever that I agree with Sue Carlton! Maybe it is a sign of the apocalypse.

by Diane	04/06/07 10:58 AM
As an insurance adjuster there are two primary breed most frequently seen in dog-bite incidents. Rottweilers and Pitt Bulls. I would estimate 70-80 percent of the claims are related to these two breeds.

by Heidi	04/06/07 10:02 AM
I agree with the fine. If you can't afford to care for a dog...then you shouldn't have one.

by Jane	04/06/07 09:13 AM
Proposed ordinance cont: Along with above, breeders shall be required, under supervision, to administer the drugs used to euthanize unwanted, homeless puppies.

by Liz	04/06/07 08:46 AM
I do not think that all dog owners should pay because some can not train their dogs. In order to avoid dog bites people should make sure that their dogs can not escape their yards. I do agree that some dogs need to be neutered if not well behaved.

Columns

Charge for intact dogs just good sense