ADVERTISEMENTS

Give The Bark -- The Ultimate Dog Magazine

dibanner


books on dogs


Introducing the New Havahart Wireless Custom-Shape Dog Fence


Find care for your pets at Care.com!
Pet Meds

Heartspeak message cards


Celebrate Mother's Day with $10 off! 130x600

Bulldog Leash Hook

Healthy Dog Treats


80% savings on Pet Medications

Free Shipping - Pet Medication


Cheapest Frontline Plus Online

Fine Leather Dog Collars For All Breeds

Tag: mandatory

And now, the downside of doggy DNA tests

dnany

The board of a ritzy Manhattan co-op is requiring some residents undergo testing of their blood and spit to determine if they are pure enough — and of the proper type — to live there.

As of last month, dog owners living in the luxury tower at 170 West End Avenue must have their veterinarian sign off on the canine’s pedigree and, if the pet is a mix, detail the percentage of each breed, according to DNAInfo.com

The policy is designed to purge the building of any pedigrees the board deems troublesome.

And the board deems many breeds troublesome — 27 in all, including the Pomeranian and the Maltese.

Residents were informed of the new policy a few months ago.

The board policy says the 27 breeeds were chosen based on “documented information regarding their tendency towards aggressiveness.”

In the case of mixed breed dogs, the co-op board is requiring owners to have their pet undergo a DNA test. If the test shows a dog to be made up of more than 50 percent of one of the outlawed breeds, it will have to leave the building.

Initially, they wanted to require mandatory DNA testing of all dogs, but they amended the policy to require the testing “at the board’s discretion.”

The latest version of the policy, issued on May 26, says that if a dog’s breed is unknown “the board at its sole discretion may require a resident to perform DNA testing.”

The 484-unit, 42-story cooperative is one of eight buildings that comprise Lincoln Towers, a 20-acre property near Lincoln Center managed by FirstService Residential. Each building has its own co-op board and makes its own policies.

The board policy also requires that residents register their dog and provide a mugshot of the canine.

The list of banned breeds includes St. Bernards and German shepherds, pit bulls, basset hounds — and even the tiny shih tzu.

“It’s like dog racism essentially,” one resident said of the new policy. “It’s beyond offensive, it’s intrusive.”

(Photo: From NYcurbed.com)

L.A. to halt low-cost spay-neuter program

Citing a budget shortfall, Los Angeles animal control officials say they will end a voucher program that enabled residents to get low cost spaying and neutering for their dogs.

The program started last year, when the city voted to require all Los Angeles dogs and cats be neutered or spayed, with the exception of show animals, law enforcement and service dogs, and those deemed too old or sick for the surgery.

L.A. Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks says the agency was compelled by the city to make up a budget shortfall of $414,000. Ending the spay and neuter vouchers will save about $150,000, he said.

Animal welfare advocates, and some city council members, are displeased with the decision to end the program, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Councilman Dennis Zine’s office said he ”strongly opposes the recent decision made by the department to halt the voucher program” and will move later this week for the council to reinstate the program.

Chicago reconsiders mandatory sterilization

Mandatory pet sterilization is back on the table in Chicago, and this time the City Council sponsor says he expects his proposal, revised to lessen the fines, to win approval.

Under the new proposal from Alderman Ed Burke, a third offense for not neutering or spaying a pet before they turn 6 months old would trigger a fine of $100 per month. His earlier proposal called for a $500 fine.

A mandatory spay/neuter law was proposed last summer, and former TV game show host Bob Barker came to Chicago to support it, saying it would cut down on the numbers of stray dogs and cats euthanized each year.

But the Chicago and Illinois State Veterinary Medical Associations opposed the measure, saying decisions about sterilization were best left to pet owners and their veterinarians, according to the Chicago Tribune. The proposal never came to a vote.

The proposal is expected to be voted on at a committee meeting Thursday.

Last day to spay if you live in L.A.

Effective tomorrow, if you own an unaltered dog or cat in Los Angeles, you’re technically an outlaw.

As the website of L.A. Animal Services has been telling citizens – via a digital countdown of the days, hours, minutes and seconds until the city’s spay/neuter law goes into effect Wednesday — time’s almost up.

The Los Angeles City Council approved the measure in February in hopes of stemming the number of unwanted and stray animals in shelters. According to the Humane Society of the United States, 3 million to 4 million animals are euthanized in shelters nationwide each year. About 15,000 are euthanized a year in Los Angeles, according to a report by the City Controller

Dogs and cats exempted from the ordinance, according to the Los Angeles Times, include those that are being trained for special activities, have medical excuses, are show dogs or belong to owners aspire for their animals to join the show circuit.

The ordinance also has a lenient grace period, allowing four months before it is enforced. Even then, owners who have been found not to be in compliance have 60 days to alter their pets or pay a $100 fine. A third offense results in a $500 fine.

A report by City Controller Laura Chick said it’s doubtful that L.A. Animal Services will be able to enforce the new law.

“No one is sure how spay and neuter canvassing or enforcement should occur. The department plans to rely primarily on voluntary compliance,” she wrote. 

Ed Boks, general manager of L.A. Animal Services, responded by saying his department would enforce the measure “to the fullest extent possible. Owners should not conclude that they can avoid compliance without consequence.”