Educating not Discriminating
Dog Legislation Education (DLE) is for anyone on either side of the Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) fence. I wanted to provide a place where you can ask questions that otherwise might spark debate. This is not meant to be a place to argue the issues, but to help people understand why dogs bite, who's really responsible, and what types of legislation have proven successful in protecting the public and punishing human offenders. Anyone commenting on the blog will be removed from the group for being insensitive. My main focus will be for citizens of Springfield, Mo as the Animal Issues Task Force (AITF) has proposed new legislation, policies, programs to City Council. Because these proposals could help improve the safety of citizens anywhere, the blog is open to anyone.
The Root of Fear is Ignorance.
The one thing I have learned over the years, is that most people who have a problem with a specific breed of dog either had one bad experience or heard bad stuff on the news. Humans are allowed to be afraid...I'm afraid of spiders, hopefully no one faults me for that! What I hope to accomplish with this blog is to help Pit Bull and other Power Breed owners to understand that some people don't know any better than to be afraid. As dog owners we have to take our time and show the public that no one breed stands alone with behavioral issues. I hope to not only educate people who don't know the blessings our dogs bring, but also help educate people who may not know what is appropriate behavior for them and their dog. Though I don't believe Breed Specific Legislation is effective in educating the public, I do believe Potentially Dangerous Dog, Dangerous Dog, and Irresponsible Owner Legislation can not only educate, but improve public safety as well.
Please enjoy the blog, sign up for email updates, keep your filters on when commenting, and hopefully learn something new today.
To ask questions anonymously email at

Monday, July 8, 2013

Mandatory Dog Licensing

Why Mandatory Dog Licensing?

One of the items that has been discussed in the AITF meetings is Dog Licensing. I didn't believe at first I would like licensing all four of my dogs until we began studying other places that have mandatory licensing and the possible benefits. Calgary has amazing reasons why people actually want to license dogs. Here is a draft of a list the AITF has been talking about...

 Implement a comprehensive pet licensure program for dogs and a voluntary licensing for cats- This approach would be modeled after ordinances in many cities, including Salt Lake City, Omaha, and Calgary. Responsible pet ownership revolves around the proper care and identification of an animal and preventing pets from becoming a hazard or nuisance to the community. 
  o Goal: To promote the philosophy of responsible pet ownership.
  o Under this approach:
              There will be no limit on the number of pets one can own; the focus will be responsible ownership. If the owner of any animal cannot demonstrate the ability to abide by ordinances that are associated with the care and upkeep of animals, they will no longer be permitted to harbor pets under the reckless owner provision
              We recommend a differential licensure approach where the licensing fees are significantly less for animals that have been spayed/neutered. 

There has also been suggestions of a free ride home for a first offence with a dog at large, and a coupon booklet with discounts from area businesses. Sounds like it would be cheaper to license all four of my dogs than it would be to license my two Pit Bulls. What have those of us with Pit Bulls X's have to loose? And how many people with any breed would feel better if your dog would have every chance of making it's way back home if lost? How many of you know if your current microchips have to be renewed every year? Very few places give out lifetime microchips. What if this mandatory licensure could keep you microchip valid for the life of you dog?

Food for Thought...An questions or comments?


  1. I think that the idea of licensing your dog is a good one. Springfield used to require that you license your dogs in the past anyway. I'm not sure the reasoning behind it having been faded out, but I would be perfectly fine having to license my dogs here.

    Food for thought on the microchips: The microchip companies deal with different cities and municipalities across the country. I don't think it is fair to them as a business to require them to monitor whether or not your license in your city is current. Nor should it be their responsibility. You pay a fee to them to activate and maintain (I have a lifetime chip) the microchips validity and working order, it shouldn't be linked to your municipal dog license. Now with that said, if your dog gets picked up, scanned, and it shows you have not registered them, maybe the city could do a "fine" (something reasonable like $30 or something) and then make you register your dog on the spot. Or if you have been licensed in the past maybe you are just required to re-registered then and maybe pay a "late fee" type of thing of $10. I'm just making up numbers, but I think that would be more effective since microchips are separate things from a license.

    Again, I think that licensing pets should me required of pet owners. It really is the first step to showing responsibility for your furkids.

    1. As far as what the task force has discussed, microchipping would be and option, but not required. There has also been many discussions, with many ideas on how to make it beneficial for citizens to license their dogs.