How many of us feel bad about the reputation that the Pittbull now has? Not to mention all of the other harder to handle breeds who become a danger to people... Don't you think it would be a better idea if we were MORE SELECTIVE over who gets to aquire and raise harder to handle dogs? It would be so much more safe knowing that one had to work to aquire a licence to raise that Rotty you see walking toward you...because you know that the owner/handler has an education...you know you don't have to worry for the safety of your child next to you... The luxury of knowing that it's been "taken care of" would make for such a calmer society around people who have dogs that have a reputation.

I'm not talking about the poorly trained Poodle or misbehaving Maltese who's under trained out of control and/or nippy...this too is an issue of sorts, but cannot compare to the mass fear and distruction that an aggressive Pitt or riled up Rotty can accomplish.

We need to remember that not all people love/like dogs. We live in this world and share space w/ people who don't share the love. Each and every one of us that has a dog are setting an example for the next. We have the capasity to ruin it...if we don't set a proper example, (for even something like picking up after a dog eliminates...). For every dog owner that "blows it" you are setting up the next dog owner to suffer your irresponsibility.

Altenweg

Right now, in Alberta, there are many restrictions for the so called "dangerous breeds". You have to register a pitbull with the RCMP, pay a hefty licensing fee and many other things in order to own a dog of this breed.

I myself am not a pitbull person, I have nothing against the breed itself, it simply doesn't fit into my lifestyle.

Yes there are alot of pitbull attacks, mainly because of poor training on the owners part, or poor housing (not locking them into a secure fenced yard). But the reason we hear about the pit attacks is because, when they do attack, they do alot of damage. They have powerful jaws, a powerful damaging bite.

I'm sure that there are just as many attacks by other breeds, but let's face it, if a teacup poodle attacks, it isn't going to do as much damage as a larger dog would.

I have two big dogs, lab crosses. One is a rescue, he was an abused dog when we got him. I trust him with my kids and family, he's never given me a reason not to, but I still keep an eye out. I know that he is capable of biting, all dogs are, to turn my back and think that everything will always be okay, well that's negligent. I've also trained my kids, yes, my kids, on how to behave with dogs, the does and don'ts, the things that will provoke an attack. They do not approach strange dogs, they know better.

Bottom line, pitbulls have gotten a bad rap, and I agree with SweetDee, there should be restrictions, tests, a special license that needs to be obtained before you are allowed to own a pitbull.

SweetDee

I fully agree w/ you Altenweg. We agree then...

It's not enough to have to pay a hefty fee for licencing w/ the RCMP, right? The whole point is to get licencing BECAUSE you've succeeded a training course...

froggy7

I disagree with this in part. There is no reason to not extend those requirements to all would-be dog owners. Labs can kill. A baby was killed by a chihuahua. And, even if the small dogs don't generally kill people, they do bite... a lot. And I do not enjoy taking my dog on a walk and having to fend off attacks from poorly trained pugs and other small dogs.

Plus it gets rid of that entire problem of classifying "dangerous breeds". Sure, most people will agree on pits, rotties, and dobies. What about GSDs, huskies, mastiffs, bulldogs, akitas, rhodesian ridgebacks, and chows? Or a pit/lab mix? Does that one get included because of the pit part, or excluded because of the lab part? Or the collies, which are dogs that bite a lot of kids because of their herding instincts? And what happens when someone moves in with a dog that is not on the list because no one ever had one before in the area? Making it apply to all dogs makes life a lot easier, and prevents some of the legal challenges you will get otherwise.

Altenweg

That's a good step SweetDee.

My only concern, is the dogs. There are already so many restrictions that alot of these dogs are being put to sleep because no one wants to go through the extra costs and licensing in order to get one.

If we add yet another restriction, another cost, what will happen to these dogs?

I do think it's necessary, I do think it's a very good idea, I just hope that if something like this were put into place, that the dogs wouldn't be the ones to suffer because of it.

Personally, I think all potential dog owners should take a course, regardless of the breed. Too many people get dogs on impulse. The cute little puppy at the pet store that later pees all over your house and rips up all your furniture, then ends up at the shelter at 1 year of age, with a troubled past and many restrictions.

I am a big advocate of rescuiing dogs from the shelter, but even that has become too restricting. In order for me to get an older dog, I have to meet their specific criteria. Most times it's "no kids under 16 years of age, no other animals in the home". My kids are 10 and 6, but they aren't the typical pull the dogs ears, jump on them kids. They've both been raised with dogs and many other animals, they know how to behave around dogs. I don't think it is fair to judge an entire age group.

I am an experienced dog owner, I do not make impulse decisions when it comes to adopting a pet. If I do adopt a pet, then it's for life. I am willing to go the extra mile and pay the extra expense in order to meld that pet into our family.

SweetDee

Froggy7, you make some AWESOME points as usual...hence the reasoning behind this debate.

Perhaps getting a licence to own a dog is in order, PERIOD! Forget only having certain breeds be a reason behind getting schooled and licenced... I say YES to that conclusively!

Altenweg, if everyone could be as responsible a family and you and yours are toward your canine companion...I believe that shelters would be out of business. What a dream..

rex123

The way I see it is all dogs have a breaking point or limits, I believe to respect a dog is to know those limitations.
When I see people in town with dogs that are wearing muzzles, I don'T think oh well they must be aggressive they should be put down, I think good on the owners for protecting others as well as there dogs.

Becca1025

I completely agree. I have a rescue dog that is a pitmix. She has to be the sweetest girl yet the biggest wuss I have ever seen.

My mother in law has three dachsunds (sp?). She and her three dogs (she insisted they HAD to come) stayed at our house for Christmas last year. Well I also hada cat. Well the day before Christmas Eve I get home from Christmas shopping and I get the news that HER small wiennie dogs KILLED my cat. They slaughtered her. This woman has zero control over her dogs, she does not know how to handle them. People think it is cute when they bark or show teeth because they are so small. They think "oh how cute they are, they think they're big and tough" well they are far more viscious then my pitmix. My pitmix loved my cat and was so depressed when she realized my cat was gone.

When it comes down to it, it is the owner and how they raise and control their dogs. My pitmix has been loved, socialized, disciplined the way she should, trained the way she should, knows her boundaries, I don't put her in situations that can get her into trouble, yet look at my mother in laws dogs. Three small little dachsunds are way more dangerous then my pit. I have seen her dachsunds snip, growl, bite, attack, constantly. To her it is funny and "cute" because they are small. I love my mother in law dearly, but she is nowhere near a responsible pet owner and I do not think she should have any until she can learn to control them and handle them. I get so worried leaving my son with her because of her dogs. My mother in law was so shocked when I told her I trust my pitmix with my son way more then I trust her dogs. She tells me "what can my little dogs do to him?"

So it should not only be done with those owners of "dangerous" breeds, but with ALL owners.

Synnen

I've never understood why it was the DOG that had to have a license and not the OWNER.

Altenweg

I agree with everyone.

As for the dachshund breed, they were originally bred to hunt. Their short stature and long body made them perfect for getting into tight places. They were also kept as rat killers for a very long time. You cannot get rid of instinct. Many people think that because they are a small breed that they are not dangerous. Dachshunds are one of the most vicious breeds, we just don't hear about it because they don't do alot of damage when they attack a human, but the do kill other animals and are not a good breed to have with kids.

All owners should have a license, it would cut down on impulse buying and then the shelters wouldn't be as full. I also think that owners should have to sign a contract stating that they promise to keep and care for the pet for its entire lifespan, unless unforseen circumstances arise (allergies, losing a job and no longer able to afford to care for pet etc.) Even then, I think that the pet owner should do everything in their power to find the pet a home before relinquishing it to the shelter.

My oldest dog is now 13 years old, he's at the stage in his life when his vet bills are outlandish, meds for arthritis, epilepsy, you name it. He's almost completely blind, and deaf. He's my first baby, my big suck, and I will do everything I can to make his remaining time comfortable. My pets are forever, I've never given up a pet and I never will. It's training and care, love and understanding the nature of the animal you bring into your home.