>

Right, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?
You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding? >

Sorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business. >

What makes it a business? >

Whatever you have to tell the IRS. >

Many people run a "business" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality >

Whether people do it or not, its illegal. >

But that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them? >

There is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry. >

In the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. 
So, your view is sort of what's happening. >

!delta
That's awesome >

While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?
I agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?
What other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? 
I would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes. >


While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?

Yeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes. >

The problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.
Restricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters. >

The dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. 
Most animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog. >


I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and 
allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a 
license to practice when considered as a business.

This sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out. >

I think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said. >

If someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.
You won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.
Most people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get. >


If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.

What makes you say that? >

Because many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog. >

What problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?
It sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.
Years ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.
Since then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.
The dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.
I'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems. >


that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.

Completely projecting your anecdote, this is false.

If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.

Incorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that. >

So if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?
And this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.
Does that person deserve to go to jail for that? >

See my edit >

You’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach. >

It did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business. >

What do you mean by "jailable"? A night in jail? A year? 
Do you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time? >

I don’t think the government should have this much power this doesn’t need regulations strays are strays that’s it >

While I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. 
Usually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.
ETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. 
Honestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen. >

well, if you think of it from a legal standpoint, one is required a business license to own a business. and i’m not 100% sure on this, but having a business license means you agree to treat employees fairly, and just who do you think the employees are in a place where DOGs are being bred? (hint, it’s in all caps)
and from a business standpoint, two different species of dogs breeding when they really shouldn’t be could be one of two things: one is a private contract, if one person owns the female and another party owns the male. comparable to a grocer making a deal with a new bread company to make their new sandwiches with. nothing to do with government. the second thing it could be are two dogs that are fully registered (link in next paragraph) and are almost guaranteed to have nothing wrong with their offspring breeding.
and from a third point, it’s required where i’m from, not entirely sure about anywhere else, but dogs are required to be registered under the American Kennel Club which dna tests the dog to make sure they’re safe to breed and not pass any hereditary disease to the puppies, so their’s your “human rights” part of employing dogs.
edit: forgot the second point in the second paragraph 😅 >

My grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting.  He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.
The idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.
For one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.
Dogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.
Why would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a "local area's homeless dog populations" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc. >


This is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. 

Yes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle...  well you're free to believe that >

On par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.
What are you using for the overall evaluation of "better" here? >

u/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: 

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >

If I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals? >

Call spay and neuter.