Intact dog permit and worries over no more pets











Your ideas are always welcome.

Cathy M. Rosenthal

10 Responses

  1. Bryson says:

    My dog is gay! He’s not like you breeders.

  2. Gerald Fischer says:

    Bexar Co. has had a law on the books for years (Dangerous Wild Animal)that they dont enforce. I’ve been trying for a couple of years to find out who enforces it and nobody will give me an answer. What makes them think this will be enforced? Its all “Talk” and no action.

  3. jh says:

    I don’t think mandatory spay/neuter is too harsh at all. IF money is a concern then you shouldn’t own a pet to begin with. It costs more money to deal with the litters. There are plenty of low cost spay/neuter options out there.

    If pet extinction is the concern I don’t think it will happen in any of our lifetimes.

    Any step, such as this permit, is a plus in my book

  4. poly says:

    In my perfect animal world, to go along with the microchip practice, I think the puppy mill owners or irresponsible breeders who refuse to take back animals should have to face the consequences for the animals they breed and are eventually abandoned. Charged a fee for every animal taken in to a shelter or pay fines for not working to rehome these pets. Depending on the number of animals from the breeder that end up dumped at shelters or picked up as strays, these puppy mill owners would have to pay for their life care. This would be easier to regulate or police than mandatory neutering laws.

    a girl can dream.

  5. Cathy M. Rosenthal says:

    I like that idea. Most shelters state in their contracts with potential adopters that they must return the pet to them if they can no longer care for the pet. Few people do this, however. I think they are embarassed and either re-home, dump, or take the pet to another shelter. But they should return the pet to the original shelter because they will do whatever it takes to re-home the pet.

    Microchipping pets may change how everyone does business. Most responsible breeders will take back a pet. I had a friend many years ago who breed shepherds. One of the dogs was returned for aggression. She kept and raised the dog herself. But not every breeder is a responsible breeder. I have seen instances where a breeder refuses to take back a sick puppy. These people are usually puppy mill operators, and not what I would calla responsible breeder.

    But I do think responsible breeders would not mind staying linked to one of their offspring at all through microchipping as you suggest. Responsible breeders want to make sure their dogs and cats don’t end up at shelters.

    I think what microchipping might do for the welfare of dogs and cats is prevent fewer animals from being dumped, period. If the pet can be traced to an owner through a microchip and it becomes clear the animal was dumped, they could face abandonment charges.

  6. poly says:

    I have an idea. I volunteer at a no-kill rescue with a policy that I think all breeders should be required to do as well. At the rescue, any dog or cat rescued will always have a home…so if an animal is adopted and for any number of reasons, the adopter is unable to continue care, the shelter will take back the animal no questions asked. One of the ways this is possible, we microchip all the animals. Often times, the shelters call us to tell us one of our animals is there. Or other rescues have saved them or the adopter brings the animal back.

    If breeders were required to microchip their animals, so that they are forever linked to that animal, my guess is a large number of breeders would absolutely cut back on the number of animals they breed. Some say 30% of all animals in shelters are pure breeds, from breeders. If they had more than fleeting responsibility for the life they created, they might not be so quick to over populate.

  7. Cathy M. Rosenthal says:

    I hear you, but I don’t agree with mandatory spay/neuter laws. I think the city is making an effort to try something — a nudge if you will — in the right direction without implementing the mandatory ordinance. I totally agree that ACS needs to drop the “drop off fee” and accept feral cats. The entire state of Texas has pretty severe pet overpopulation problems and San Antonio, sadly, is no exception.

  8. FS says:

    This is a feel-good law that at the end of the day doesn’t accomplish much. This city needs a mandatory spay / neuter law and in conjunction with this, needs to do sweeps by ACS in the most affected neighborhoods in the city. This sounds harsh, but that is the only way that this city is going to get it’s stray animal problem under control. ACS also needs to change it’s policy on charging for unwanted pet drop-offs and begin accepting feral cats again. Dallas is already doing the sweeps because they are in as bad a shape as we are. To my knowledge, no other large city in this state charges a fee for drop-offs and does not accept feral cats.

  9. Cathy M. Rosenthal says:

    I agree with you on the garage sale permits. I had never heard of such a think until I moved here 7 years ago– and I have lived all over. I heard about the mandatory blood draw for potential DUI drivers last night and agreed that this sounded like a violation of our constitutional rights. Seems like some attorneys should be protesting that on our behalf.

    In terms of the intact breeding permit, it is really designed to save lives so that ACS stops having to euthanize 35,000 dogs and cats every year. But I equate it to the seat belt law. It’s good to have, some violators will get caught; and it sends the message that we don’t want to have to kill any more animals in San Antonio. We’re hard put to find another way to prevent euthanasia.

    I would love to hear other thoughts on possible solutions.

  10. Richard Jimenez says:

    This new law is the most ridiculous thing I’ve every heard! Along with the stupid ideaa of charging people to have to pay for permits for garage sales on their own freaking yards! What the hell do they think the ridiculous amount of taxes we pay are for. The recent manadatory blood draw for DWI suspects is also another violation of human rights!!! It’s getting harder and harder to want to live in San Antonio with this type of obsurd laws and requirements. How can the city impose laws and permits that affect all citizens without the citizens having a chance to vote on this? How can we get rid of the people in office that are allowing this to happen? I think it’s time for the citizens to San Antonio to really voice their disapproval with this foolishness!!!!!!!