@ Randy Good Points

I apologize for my misspellings and inaccuracies. Heat of the moment. I think your response above is a much more informative comment on Madacc than your first post. You are right, if there was more awareness of what Madacc does, perhaps people would be more responsible with their pets. Madacc relies heavily on volunteers and donations to supplement what little government funding they receive. Unlike the Humane society which receives so much more in donations. I'm just saying, it all comes down to money. If someone (perhaps yourself) could propose a budget that shows Milwaukee could save more by becoming no-kill, I would hope it would be considered. Attacking commentary about Madacc is not helpful, especially for the animals they are trying to save. And in response to other comments out here, I did not say animals could not be rehabilitated, I said that it costs MONEY to rehabilitate. Money that is not available to save them all.

Whoops, let me correct myself before David crawls up my butt; MADACC, not MADOCC.

Collars can be a problem, catching on things and causing injury or trapping an animal that has tried to crawl in a tight space. Vets recommend breakaway collars, and they're likely to be gone in any case. Microchips are the best, because even in the best of homes, pets can get out accidentally.

I did the same thing with what I thought was a lost dog last year. Now I feel horrible. I looked on their web site and saw a picture of the dog that they posted. It looked like the dog went unclaimed for the 5 or so days I monitored it. Perhaps more advertising should be done so people with lost pets realize this is a resource for them.

Kathy, I didn't say that only rich people should own pets. It's irresponsible argumentation for you to suggest that I did, and it reflects poorly on the cause you represent.

I said "It's sad when people can't afford to pay for spaying/neutering their pets, or for microchipping, or to get them back from MADACC, but seriously - if you can't afford those things, then you can't afford to be a good pet owner."

Just like, if you can't afford to feed your kids, clothe them, and make time for them, then you can't afford to be a good parent. Just as people shouldn't be able to adopt children without demonstrating an ability to care for them, so should it be for pets.

I'm sure that there are emotional benefits to pet ownership, but there are harms associated with not being able to keep your pets healthy or safe.

Kathy, I agree that pets are powerful tools in combating isolation and depression in the elderly, teaching responsibility to young children, and helping people with disabilities work toward and achieve independence. However, provisions for animal care must be included.

Concerning children and animals I do have this concern: More than once adults have shared that they wanted their children to experience kittens/puppies but didn't plan to keep the offspring. With books and videos available there is absolutely no justification for this type of thinking except that someone didn't want to take the time and expense of spaying.

I actually do support income guidelines for pet ownership for non-special needs persons; as I wrote above, if you can't afford to feed, neuter/spay, care for an animal, you really shouldn't have one.

I have to say that spaying and neutering is a no-brainer, but to me, micro-chipping is not a standard all pet owners should have to meet. What pets want is a home with love in it. They don't need to eat their Fanci-feast from Waterford crystal.

As for children and animals -- that goes for all animals, not just the rehabilitated fighting dogs. You need to use good sense and supervise your children's interaction with any animal that is large enough to do them significant damage.

I'm seeing a cost of about $45 for implanting a microchip. For me, it's a no-brainer. Given the cost of pet food, cat litter, etc., someone's inability to come up with $45 for a microchip raises a red flag. Especially since that's the first thing they check at MADACC - the microchip could make the difference between you getting a phone call that your pet has been found, and never seeing your pet again.

Should you really be getting a pet if your budget doesn't allow you to spend an extra $45 on a one-time proactive measure like microchipping? How much can you love your pet if you won't pony up $45 that might save its life?

Taoist Crocodile , microchips are great. I will never dispute that. I am a co-founder and interim director of Lost Dogs of Wisconsin, an all volunteer organization that has helped 868 dogs get back home safely so far in 2012. But they are not foolproof. There are cultural and educational barriers that still exist. You say that people that can't afford the $45 shouldn't get a pet. What about the people that already have a pet and then lose their job, or their home, or their insurance. Should we expect them to surrender their animals and then kill them?

Bren, I never said anything about acquiring a pet so that children can see puppies or kittens being born.

Children learn compassion and responsibility by seeing it in action. Children that are taught to love and care for a pet will carry those traits into adulthood and pass them on to their children. Compassion towards animals has nothing to do with income. Poor children are just as capable as well-to-do children to learn compassion and responsibility.

Kathy,

"What about the people that already have a pet and then lose their job, or their home, or their insurance. Should we expect them to surrender their animals and then kill them?"

I think we should expect them to take care of their own animals. If they can't, and nobody else will, then what do you think should happen to them? I'm sorry, but animals are animals. I don't think one public dollar should be spent on keeping unwanted animals alive for perpetuity, or finding homes for them.

Foundations that solicit donations to care for unwanted animals are misguided, in my view, but if that's what people want to do with their money, than who am I to argue? However, we've got a large and growing number of people who have no place in the economy, and they need public assistance more than the stray cats and dogs.

If someone can't afford to take care of their pet, then they need to try to find a responsible way to get rid of it, and in my book that includes euthanasia. Ultimately, if you're having a hard time making ends meet, then it's irresponsible to risk your own future, or your family's future, for the sake of the family pet.

Was the woman playing with a rehabilitated fighting chimpanzee?

No, he was a retired actor, but I take it that you're suggesting that a rehabilitated fighting chimpanzee would have been safer. Possibly because rehabilitation is so much more effective for animals than humans? Doesn't make sense to me, but like I said, throw your own kids to the dogs if you want.

If memory serves, prior minor incidents with that same chimp led to exotic pet legislation in that state (CT). The chimp in question was grandfathered in. I'm also thinking about that private zoo tragedy in Ohio, when a suicidal exotic pet owner opened cages and freed animals, leading to many of their deaths. Also consider the issue of pythons in the Florida Everglades. This non-native species has flourished in the region, ravaging the native habitat. Again, exotic pet owners who can no longer manage their 20' - 30' python drop them off in the Everglades; some have escaped from breeder farms.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the authorities to ask the hard questions if someone wants a lion, chimp, or poisonous/non-indigenous snake for a pet.

Unfortunately, Taoist Crocodile, you don't understand the system. Pets brought into MADACC cost approximately $185 each to hold and kill. So whether you like it or not, you are paying for it. Your lack of compassion for humans and animals is troubling. I won't waste any more time on your comments.

Kathy, I have plenty of compassion for humans. I'm the one saying that we shouldn't be expending public resources to take care of stray cats and dogs when there are children living in poverty. I know how far 185 dollars goes for cat food, cat litter, cat medical bills, etc; better to euthanize the strays than take police off the streets or food out of starving children's mouths. Some of these posters and organizations need to get their priorities straight.

And that's why I do almost anything in my power to see that an animal doesn't end up in a shelter. I take in the pets of the feckless and the poor souls who have fallen on hard times, the ones who I know wouldn't do well because they're old and poorly socialized. I feed them and pay their vet bills and love them and ultimately bury them. Not dogs, although I like dogs too.

Thank you Randy1949! You are exactly right. Reducing intake at animal control goes a long ways towards solving the problem. Proactively reuniting lost pets with their owners, reducing surrenders (like what you are doing) and Trap, neuter, return of feral cats all cost less than housing and killing pets.

Taoist Crocodile, you are still missing the point. It costs money to kill animals and dispose of the carcasses. There is labor, the staff training to handle euthanasia drugs, the crematorium, the drug costs, etc. State law mandates this . You are paying for it now - whether you like it or not. What I am suggesting is a less expensive alternative (and more humane). Here is some reading for you that illustrates how animal control costs can be reduced: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/econbenefits.pdf

Whether you like animals or not, I am sure you like money. And improving animal control practices saves money.

@Kathy -- I have actually tamed ferals (definitely ferals as opposed to strays). It takes some patience, but it isn't impossible. I also take issue with the 'better off dead than on their own' mindset. As long as they're not breeding and adding to the population they deserve the same chance at life as any other wild animal.

Hey, great. I'm not saying that they should be euthanized; I'm just saying that it's not smart to let them play with children.

I say this because our neighbor has a rescued pit bull that is "so gentle, and would never hurt anyone," except for the time that it lunged and bit me on the elbow. Oh, and it growls at me whenever I get within 5 feet of the property line. Oh, and for some reason, they recognize the need to chain it up and hold its collar -practically sit on it- whenever anyone is outside at my house. Oh, by the way - I have a 3-month-old daughter.

So you tell me, are all people rational when it comes to evaluating the danger that their beloved pets might pose to others? Since the answer is no, I don't trust anyone who will say that their fighting dog is rehabilitated.

Incidentally, since there are so many people posting here who know so much about humane animal control, what's the best way to deal with the combination of an out-of-control pit bull that I'm not responsible for, which could come bursting into my yard at any moment, and my soon-to-be-crawling infant daughter?

"... except for the time that it lunged and bit me on the elbow. Oh, and it growls at me whenever I get within 5 feet of the property line."

Sounds like a wise dog to Hoffa ;-)

Hoffa, get back under your bridge.

Taoist Crocodile, you have singled out pitbulls twice in your comments, why? Are you under the imprression that they are the only breed that could potentially attack a cat or bite at your elbow? If your neighboor's dog is lunging and barking at anyone, don't blame that dog, blame the owner. Responsible owners will correct that behavior and train/socialize the dog better. That dog wasn't born acting that way, humans shaped that behavior in one form or another. Stop singling out pitbulls, this post has 0 to do with them.

Oh for crying out loud - Kelly, that's a great example of animal lover's tunnel vision. I'm not slandering pit bulls; I'm clearly taking issue with pet owners who can't afford to care for their pets, or can't control their pets, or don't realize that their pets are dangerous, or create a hazard for my family by allowing those uncontrollable dangerous pets near my infant daughter.

Of course, humans are at fault, and it's sad that the animals wind up suffering because of us their broke and/or stupid human owners. However, animals are animals, and we shouldn't be treating them with more compassion than we treat humans. We shouldn't be taking food out of the mouths of poor children to feed unwanted animals. That's the sign of a society with screwed-up priorities.

Hell I am with Taoist , all pit bulls and any variation of that breed need to be eliminated.

Sorry, Pennypacker, but you're wrong. Pits, Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc. can all be very gentle and non-aggressive, and it would be a real injustice to some wonderful animals to do some knee-jerk blanket ban.

It's all in the breeding and the training. I knew a Pit who was so gentle that the mailman was in tears the day he had to be put down. On the other hand, his successor had to be returned to the breeder after he showed signs of aggression in spite of the owner's skilled training. Irresponsible breeders will ruin a breed.

@Taoist -- "Hey, great. I'm not saying that they should be euthanized; I'm just saying that it's not smart to let them play with children."

Again, it's not smart to leave a child alone with any animal without understanding the animal's basic nature and the child's age. I'm in agreement with you about having an aggressive, territorial dog next door to you. I'd be investing in a stout chainlink fence around your entire yard. because that's not the only dog in the city.

H.E. Pennypacker and Taoist want to eliminate any breed of pitbull because of their typical liberal hate.

Oh, please. Politics has nothing to do with it.

No I want to eliminate any of the top 5 aggressive dogs because they kill and harm human beings. This is why I conceal carry while walking my hunting dog, I simply don't trust these monsters.

There you have it, folks -- another reason not to let your animals run free. Do you shoot dogs with collars and tags?

And here I was thinking that I was being an accommodating neighbor, and possibly a negligent father, by not calling the police and trying to have that dog put down the first time it bit me. Apparently, the dog is just misunderstood, and I should be walling myself in to protect against someone else's dangerous dog, while the dog goes to psychotherapy.

I've thought many times about what I'd be able to do if the dog came rushing at me while I was carrying my daughter in her car seat. Any suggestions from the humane and compassionate pit bull lovers out there? What's the best way to kill a pit bull with your bare hands?

@Taoist -- If it bit you, then it's not rehabilitated enough, so yeah, you probably want to report it to animal control. But like I said, it's not the only potentially dangerous dog that people will allow to run loose, so everyone needs to be aware.

Well, a couple of things;

- the owner calls it a pit bull, so that's what I call it.

- I happen to think that the owners of dangerous dogs should be the ones fencing in their yards.

- I wasn't "bitten" in the sense of a dog trying to eat my arm. But it was growling, rushed and jumped at me, and its mouth and teeth made contact with my elbow. The first thing the owner said was "oh, you shouldn't back away; that's the worst thing you can do!" Excuse me? Get your damn dog under control. Those of us who don't love your animal are under no obligation to put up with its aggressive behavior.

- and lastly, you are out of your mind. On the one hand, a pit bull is so dangerous that it could tear my arm off, but on the other hand (no pun intended), I should be defending myself from it with non-lethal means? You need a reality check.

You know, I just deleted my first reply to you, because it detailed the kind of violence I'm perfectly comfortable employing against an out-of-control dog. However, if you're curious, just ask and I'll be happy to spell it out; it starts with kicking and stomping and doesn't end until one of us is dead, or the dog is running for its life. Bottom line: No f-ing way am I letting an even slightly out-of-control dog anywhere near my kid. My child is a human being at home; this dog is a dangerous intruder. Deal with it. Dogs die all the time because their owners are too stupid or broke to keep them under control, and that's the way it should be.