Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I see a lot on TV, these people who own these big and powerful breeds of dogs. Because of their size and and strength and ability to cause more harm than other dogs if not handled properly, I think that people who want to get those kinds of dogs should take some sort of test to show that they can handle that kind of powerful breed. Its dangerous for anyone to have a dog they cant handle, its even more dangerous if that dog is a Pit Bull, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Mastiff, St. Bernard, and so on. Pit Bulls are the breed that is in the most trouble because almost all the people who have aggressive Pit Bulls, the owner doesn't know how to handle them, which can lead to aggression, then the dog gets blamed. It would do everyone good to install a system to prove we can own those dogs. The dogs shouldn't suffer from our mistakes. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
I think I shouldn't suffer for other people's mistakes either.

I'm not sure what type of test this is supposed to be or who is even qualified to create it/give it and access my ability.

I'm an APBT owner as well as other powerful breeds so of course I'm opposed to any form of BSL. This is the type of stuff we fight to keep out of law. Not to mention the funding issue would get ridiculous. If crap like this keeps coming forward in this country (US) I will be out of here sooner rather then later. I will fight the good fight but there is only so far you can go, especially with PETA/HSUS having people in their palm.

Considering how easy it is to handle Pit Bulls and it only takes responsibility/effort like any other breed people who fail to handle them shouldn't have any dog no matter what other breed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,942 Posts
The size of the dog is not the issue. The training of the dog is.

The dog that most frequently nails my vet for bites? Minature and toy poodles. why? Owners not training them. The next dog that bit them the most? Chow dogs.

There need be no legislation or testing based on breed of animal. You cannot legislate against stupidity or idiocy.

My last dog was a 95 pound German shepherd dog. She lived with my parents for awhile. They were in their 70's-80's and Mom weighed only a little more than the dog. Kazi NEVER wore a collar or a leash, no matter where she went (including the vet). She went everywhere with them. She was trained. However, your criteria might have precluded her from keeping this dog......

I have handled everything from an 8 pound house cat to a 2,000 pound ox (and dogs, horses, cattle, heifers, calves and foals of every size in between). ANY animal can be dangerous if not trained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
I agree about irresposible owners,but not about the breeds themselves. Anybody can get any dog they want,but they should be held accountible for the dogs actions. I have a Great Pyrenees/Golden Retriever mix.While it will be big,I don't think her as being a powerful breed.And most of the dogs you mentioned can be gentle as lambs if treated and trained correctly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,204 Posts
I am a 120lb small framed woman. My Pit Bull is 62lbs of pure mussle.

Guess what? I can handle him better then my Sister's boyfriend and my ex fiance both weight between 145lbs and 200lbs.

I've also handled a 90lb Rottie no trouble.

BSL in any form isn't right. No way at all. If I have to take a test for dog ownership, so should that person next door to me who owns the Yorkie that has attacked my dad countless times. Or the Lab owner up the road who refuses to leash her 2 HIGHLY OVERWEIGHT 1 BLIND 1 DEAF Lab and allow them to run in the street when Cars are coming.

Honestly no one knows what would fix the issues that we are having. The issues I've seen with Pit Bull are the fact owners get them with out realizing that they are a high prey driven dog and will go after cats, wildlife, other dogs. Then they think "OMG what if it was a child??!?!" Without realizing that this breed of dog has been bred for 100's of years to attack other dogs.

Maybe a 2 strike rule would be better then the 3 strike rule. Maybe if Behaviorist were more available, cost less, and more people knew about them, attacks would drop. Maybe if Good, quality breeders weren't so hard to find, BYBer wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I'm starting to look for good breeders in the area and I have come across 100's of BYBers but not 1 good one. Maybe that is where ths issue lies, BUT if you start going after breeders, the only ones that will suffer are the GOOD breeders because they don't make money off of their pups so can't afford to pay extra fee's while Puppy mills and BYBer would.

Laws won't help change much. Most people just don't know any better. I've found most people only know myths about Pit Bulls, heck most call my Pit Bull a Boxer! People just don't know, and that is where the issue stems from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
I think any dog can be dangerous, and I think that BSL is stupidity.

Then again, I don't like the thought that the government can come in and tell me what to do.

I think if they have BSL, then they should have CSL. Child Specific Legislation.

I know tons of people who shouldn't have kids. If we have to have a test to choose which people can own which dogs, then we most certainly should have a test regarding who is allowed to have children. :p:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,204 Posts
I think if they have BSL, then they should have CSL. Child Specific Legislation.

I know tons of people who shouldn't have kids. If we have to have a test to choose which people can own which dogs, then we most certainly should have a test regarding who is allowed to have children. :p:rolleyes:
As a retail worker, a women that wouldn't be upset if she never had children, and a person that just watched her 19year old sister without a job, living off of the state, give birth to a baby, I APPROVE of this message...

But then again, you know that wouldn't work. All those soccer moms with lipstick would join together and make all of our lives hell... oh gosh.. what horrors they would bring...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Exactly what sort of test should I have to take to own my "powerful breed"?

I'm a hardworking, law abiding, legal, tax paying citizen of the US. My "powerful breed" dog obtained his CGC and is a registered therapy dog. He has been in obedience training since he was about 5-7 months old. Why should I have to take a test to prove my ownership skills, or whatever else it is you want to know? Am I taking a test to see if I can physically outdo my dog? Well, I can still pick him up, but I'm sure he can still drag me down and pull me. Should I not be able to own him because of that? Or does the fact that he's trained better count for anything?

I concur with whomever said that EVERY dog owner should have to take this "test" you propose. I also own an 18# mixed breed dog that I worry about much more so than my "vicious" dogs (rottie, GSD & chow).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
I would rather see higher penalties for the people if their dog does harm to another animal or person. I think that might dissuade some people from being so careless with their dogs. If someone's dog bites someone unprovoked they (the owner) should be treated as if they assualted someone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
LOl, I was handling 'powerful breeds' (GSD's Rotties and Dobes) at 12 years old and barely 90 lbs. It's NOT abiout how big you are, how old you are (my daughter could walk me 150lb Mastiff at 8 years old and 50 lbs) what matters is the training that has been done.

As others have said, you can't legislate common sense. If you do make these laws, they are nearly unenforcible just as manditiry S/N laws aare and our AC are streched thin enough.

Exactly what sort of test should I have to take to own my "powerful breed"?

I'm a hardworking, law abiding, legal, tax paying citizen of the US. My "powerful breed" dog obtained his CGC and is a registered therapy dog. He has been in obedience training since he was about 5-7 months old. Why should I have to take a test to prove my ownership skills, or whatever else it is you want to know? Am I taking a test to see if I can physically outdo my dog? Well, I can still pick him up, but I'm sure he can still drag me down and pull me. Should I not be able to own him because of that? Or does the fact that he's trained better count for anything?

I concur with whomever said that EVERY dog owner should have to take this "test" you propose. I also own an 18# mixed breed dog that I worry about much more so than my "vicious" dogs (rottie, GSD & chow).
Monica, it would be very similar to gun control legislation (which I also DO NOT support) where people are required to meet certain criteria before they can purchase a gun, it doesn't prevent ANYTHING, just encourages criminal activity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,284 Posts
Such laws are ridiculous. Not only are they unfairly discriminatory, but where is the line drawn on "dangerous, powerful breed?" Do we include Boxers? Labs? Dalmatians? Are Beaucerons going to be mislabled as Rotties, American Bulldogs mislabeled as Pit Bulls?

I know a Basenji who can pull on the leash like there's no tomorrow. He's probably about 30 lbs. Is he dangerous? Powerful? What about indistinguishable large mutts? Rare breeds? What about aggressive mid sized breeds? Are you going to have to take a test if you want to keep an aggressive Sheltie, or even Chihuahua?

It's a slippery slope, costly, if not impossble to enforce and plain unfair. Why would a good owner have to be subject to a test because some dummy decided to bring home a dog they couldn't handle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
They are seriously considering BSL in my city. The reasoning behind it is that there were something like 25 dogs shot by city PD last year because they were in the process of attacking someone at the time. Something like 22 of them were Pit Bulls. I think the others were like a GSD, a lab and something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,284 Posts
They are seriously considering BSL in my city. The reasoning behind it is that there were something like 25 dogs shot by city PD last year because they were in the process of attacking someone at the time. Something like 22 of them were Pit Bulls. I think the others were like a GSD, a lab and something else.
That really sucks. :( I wish they would delve in deeper.. who was owning the dogs (NOT by race of course, just general neighborhood situations, criminal activity, is dog fighting prevalent, were the responsible owners, etc)? Where did the dogs come from? What training did they have? Were they socialized? What constitues "attack?"

There are just too many questions with these kinds of things to go and label an entire breed, type or size of dog as "dangerous." Because it's not the dog that's dangerous - it's the ENVIRONMENT that's dangerous, the BAD OWNERS who are dangerous, and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Then the owners of those dogs need to be faced with HEAVY fines and possibly jail time. I think a more reasonable solution would be a vicious dog law, where owners of dogs proven to aggressive (evaluated via an APDT or IAABC certified behaviorist), REGARDLESS OF BREED OR SIZE are held to a higher degree of accountability. Evaluatio nwould be done while the dogs are in Quarentine for a bite, be it on a human or animal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
Good points made here.

There is no way to make people be responsible and in control. You can make people take a test but that doesn't mean they are going to follow through. People know things or wrong, unlawful or harmful but they still do whatever it is to themselves or others or put other people in danger with their actions. You can't force people to control their dogs by taking a test that says they can. I can chose to control or not control my dogs regardless of a test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My point isn't to specifically create a law, thats just one suggestion I had, but the reason I wrote this is to figure out some way to help the dogs that are getting bad press, like the Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and so on. From what i've seen, their reputation with the media and the public isn't getting any better. The reason for that is because they are big, and in the eyes of some people, they look menacing, so they get reported in the news more. The thing is, almost all the people who don't like those dogs, they don't really know a lot about them, they don't know how great they are, they just go by the reports. I think if people had a better understanding of them, the situation would be a lot better. There are people who use these dogs for the wrong purpose, they use their size for the wrong reason. A law wouldn't really work, its just a stupid suggestion I had. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
The unnerving thing is how close something like this is to being law. Case in point, H.R. 80 introduced (and passed) in the House eight days after that infamous chimp incident. As one would expect, dog attacks were mentioned many times during debate. It doesn't take a large leap of imagination to see how lawmakers could use immediate emotional reactions by the general public to propose just what this thread speaks of. All they need is the right news story.

"There is no reason for any private citizen to keep a primate as a pet, and this trade is driven by unscrupulous dealers who sell primates across state lines for thousands of dollars," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society.
Just replace the word "primate" with the words "large powerful dog breed", and we're off to the races! Too realistic for my tastes...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,997 Posts
That really sucks. :( I wish they would delve in deeper.. who was owning the dogs (NOT by race of course, just general neighborhood situations, criminal activity, is dog fighting prevalent, were the responsible owners, etc)? Where did the dogs come from? What training did they have? Were they socialized? What constitues "attack?"

There are just too many questions with these kinds of things to go and label an entire breed, type or size of dog as "dangerous." Because it's not the dog that's dangerous - it's the ENVIRONMENT that's dangerous, the BAD OWNERS who are dangerous, and so on.
I don't know about the other factors, but I do know what constitutes an attack. In most cases it's a growling, snarling dog charging someone or charging the officer. Calls of "my neighbors dog is aggressive" are handled by animal control here unless the dog is actively threatening someone. I can't fault an officer for shooting a loose dog who is charging them snarling with bared teeth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Unfortunately, not everyone is dog saavy. What could look like a viscious charge to my neighbor (confirmed dog hater) might not look threatening to me at all.
Example: Dog park, last Sunday, someone brought the cutest Boxer. He came "charging" up to me in the typical "OMG LURVES ME!" way...completely non-aggressive stance. However, if I'm not a dog person and not used to dogs, I might have perceived it as "OMG that dogs going to eat me!".
My mom's border collie "snarls and shows teeth" when she greets you. Well it's more of a snorting sound and she's all wiggles and friendly...something else that could be perceived as "aggressive" since her teeth are showing.

A lot of dogs are in the media right now, so this fear based epidemic is garbage really. Anybody that knows nothing of dogs is suddenly an expert because they saw the evening news and "all pitbulls are man eating biting machines" "all Rottweilers do is bite people" etc... Yet these people know absolutely nothing and can't even determine a randoms dog breed. Anything with a fat head is automatically a "pitbull", anything that's black and tan with eyebrows is automatically a "rottweiler", and so on.

All laws like that do is punish the law-abiding. Trust me, I know, considering they've banned pitbulls where I live and I've had some pretty interesting run-ins with the police since the ban. My dogs are microchipped, vaccinated, and friendly, yet I've been singled out by the police to do registration check at my house. As have some other neighbors with banned breeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
I second that if there's going to be any kind of laws it should be for "Dangerous dogs", not just specifically by breed or anything like that. I'm currently working with our Humane Society, which right now is only covering the reserves but that is a whole pissing contest with the "dog catchers" and that's the only reason they don't have jurisdiction through the whole town. The second Angela, the woman running the HS and a very dear friend of mine, mentioned "and we'll be banning breeds like Pit Bulls" I hit the breaks and gave her "the look". She told me to put together as much information I can on the subject to prove my point (that BSL is BS) and that we'll discuss it further.

For now, there is a fine for owning an aggressive dog. It's $1,000 to register an aggressive dog (ALL dogs on the reserve must be registered now) and most people would rather surrender the dog to the humane society's care rather than pay $1,000 for a dog that's only going to cause them trouble anyway. This gets the dangerous dogs off the street and is making owners accountable for them.

For NOW we have no breed specific laws, and I'm working to KEEP it that way.

No matter WHAT if the law involves banning or "passing a test to own" too many good people are jumping through hoops to own these dogs and the less responsible ones just go under the grid and do it illegally with none the wiser. There aren't enough man power in AC and not enough funds to really maintain these kinds of projects and make them really make any kind of difference. Personally I think the best way to fight this fight is through EDUCATION and heavier fines for those who are going to get caught with a dangerous dog (regardless of breed). More consequences of owning a dangerous animal.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top