three4jump

We agree on this. None of my posts have suggested otherwise. The question is, What should those legal provisions be? One side is talking about legislation for a potetntially dangerous and frequently annoying animals. The other side is talking about their companions and friends, whom they consider people and treat better than some people treat their children. What is your Model Dog Ordinance?

godfry n. glad

Indeed...In the wake of that "loser" post, my irony-meter went off the scale.

godfry

"loser = sinner" & "dog = god"...right?

DMB

I had this problem with my Malamute when she was young. My son was just five when we got her and used to crawl into her kennel to cuddle her. I think the problem was she thought of him as a pup on her level. She accepted that she was lower in the pecking order than all the other humans in our family, but as she quickly got bigger and stronger than the little boy, she treated him as below her. Dogs do nip one another when establishing a hierarchy. It's not necessarily dangerous, but I wouldn't ever have trusted her. I made sure that he stopped going in the kennel and that he was never alone with her.

However lovable a dog may appear to be, I suggest that any dog can be dangerous. They aren't human and we tend to project too many human characteristics onto them. They should be properly trained and kept under control.

In the UK certain breeds are defined as "dangerous". One isn't any more allowed to import or breed pitbulls, for example, and any existing dogs of the named breeds have to be muzzled in public.

Since I'm not a full-time UK resident, I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that people convicted of animal cruelty or failure to control a dangerous dog can be banned from keeping animals for a period of time.

reprise

Animal owners who have been charged under our animal cruelty laws can be prohibited from owning animals for a specified period of time here. As far as I'm aware though, failing to adequately train or restrain an animal can result in fines and confiscation of the animal, but not a legal restraint on future ownership.

IMO, many of the dogs I see in my suburb are inadequately trained for living in an urban environment. I regularly see young children walking rottweilers and malamutes around here, and the child is clearly not in control of the dog - much less able to take immediate action should the dog slip the leash or behave aggressively. I regularly see owners of large-jawed, deep-chested dogs such as rotties, dobermanns, huskies, and bull terriers allow their friends to treat their dog in the same manner as the owner does (this is really, REALLY, stupid - the friend/visitor is not part of the dog's pack). And I regularly see owners teach their dogs basic commands as puppies and then abandon training altogether - you need to be able to control that dog when it's a 60 kilo, 3 year old, dog who wants to take of after a bitch on heat. You need that dog to accept some commands only from yourself, but to obey other commands from human beings in general (and especially from all members of your household).


Dog ownership is a longterm financial commitment - it is also a longterm commitment of time and energy. IMHO, it's a commitment which many people make far too lightly.

FWIW, we get a lot of extremely expensive, large breeds surrendered here when the first baby arrives in the household, not because the dogs are unstable in any way, but because the couple is not longer willing to put the same time and energy into the dog once they become parents.

When acquiring an animal, it isn't enough to simply consider whether it fits into your current lifestyle, you need to consider how it will fit into your future lifestyle, too.

Marduk

�Someone on one of these threads told of a neighbor who keeps getting pit bulls and does not train them or restrain them, so people keep calling the police who keep coming and shooting the dogs. The problem is the owner, not the dog, in this case.�

That was me, the odd part of the story is that I walked by this house lots of times with my dog when the pits were out wandering and they never bothered us, I thought they were friendly so I was surprised when I read in the paper that a cop shot them. Of course I never tried to chase and catch one of them either.



�Both of my dogs were unwanted by their previous owners. My loser dogs and I are kindred spirits, and when I treat my dogs as nicely as I know how, it is an act of rebellion against a system where everyone dumps their shit on those below them. �

Me to. I�m a misfit and so is my dog. He is the anti-Golden Retriever, stubborn, hates little kids, �eager to please� is not in his job description. But we have managed to work things out, wouldn�t trade him for anything. Some old man once offered me $500 for the dog (I have no idea why) I said no.

three4jump

$500! That's either absurdly high or absurdly low. High if you consider he could get a free (almost) dog at the pound. Low because that wouldn't cover the investment you've made in Milk Bones, let alone vet bills.

I was thinking that perhaps a possible solution to the problematic dog owner would be "dog insurance," like car insurance but for dogs. People who were responsible dog owners could get better rates, and the rates would go up for the ones who are causing all the problems. Someone caught "operating a dog without insurance" could be subject to fines and escalating punishments leading to jail time. This might be a method of protecting the general public, rewarding the conscientious dog owners, insuring against honest mistakes, and holding the troublemakers responsible.

The little girl in the news a couple of weeks ago had multiple surgeries and an extended hospital stay. I suppose this would be paid for by the parents' insurance or the dog owners' insurance (which they probably don't have) or through a civil lawsuit. Having a specific Dog Insurance program might help this situation?

DMB

I would go further than making dog insurance compulsory. I think you ought to have a dog licence, renewable only on certification by a vet that your dog is vaccinated and wormed, wears a collar and is microchipped for identification. All this is in the interest of the dog.

three4jump

I think I might agree to that, depending on how it was worded. Perhaps there would also be a provision that you would have to have your dog spayed or neutered unless you had a good reason not to, such as a careful and documented breeding program, not just a vague desire like "What if we wanted her to have puppies some day?" I would guess that owners who don't neuter their male dogs are behind most of the dog/human conflicts. This could be addressed with insurance, as well, by giving a discount for neutering.

lisarea

Actually, many homeowners policies take into account dog ownership. Usually, it takes the form of a sort of de facto breed specific legislation, charging owners of the 'bad rep' breeds often exhorbitant rates. The logistics of evaluating individual dog owners would be prohibitive to creating policies based on that.

And most municipalities do require dog licensing, of course.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): If, by "offensive", you mean atrocious, disgusting, foul, horrid, nasty, nauseating, repellent, repulsive, revolting, sickening, ugly, unwholesome or vile...then you can believe it [shoot my dog] is the most offensive thing someone could possibly say to me.