Would you recommend that local communities require potential owners of dangerous dog breeds to pass a series of courses and get certification before being allowed to obtain their desired pet?

I would not recommend this, no. I do not agree in a bigger government nor in such nannying legislature. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that this would decrease the number of irresponsible dog owners of these breeds, as your proposal does not cover the case where one person gifts the dog to another (there is no enforcement guaranteeing that the new owner is certified). Finally, who exactly would be enforcing this, would a Dog Inspecter be allowed to detain you and take your pit bull if you don’t show your certification on the spot? What about if the dog resided only on your own property? The fact that there are so many questions about this makes me extremely suspicious that the policy would have the desired results.

In lieu, I would recommend having a city where certain breeds are allowed, having a city where certain breeds are not allowed, and letting people move to the appropriate city, where those who live with the dangerous breeds accept the associated risks. But even this would not deter the number of irresponsible or unskilled pet owners of any breed, which really is the underlying problem of the “dangerous dog” argument.

I think everyone considering getting a pet- regerdless of breed or species- shoud be trained in proper care and feeding.

No. I have a boxer and on some show I saw that they are ranked 8th in dangerous dogs. I have had 3 boxers that are the sweetest dogs I have ever had. I have also seen where mutts were mean, due to the owners mistreatment of them. Where would this list begin and where would it end? And who could possibly be in charge of such a surveillance?

chyna, your answer is excellent. i only wish that this commonsense critical thinking were applied by everyone when considering all efforts to implement controls on every aspect of our lives by those with the statist\liberal mindset which thinks, with a sense of superiority, that we all need to be protected from ourselves.

I hate the fact that certain breeds are banned and branded “dangerous” when more often than not it is the owners fault and not the animals. I’m not sure if what you are suggesting would help much but something needs to be done to ensure people are getting their desired breed for the right reasons and not to use them as a status dog. There was recently a programme on the BBC (BBC3 I think, you can still catch it on the iPlayer on the BBC website) showing how many young people were using hard looking breeds (mostly Bull Terriers, Mastiffs, Rottweilers) as weapons and for status. I cried when I saw that programme, some of these people were happy to admit that they were cruel to their dogs as it was (apparently) “the only way to make them vicious. One poor Bull terrier puppy had cigarette burns all over her body.

Anyway, after seeing this programme my feelings that it is too easy to get a dog were confirmed. Maybe it would be a good idea to bring back dog liscencing. If people have to pay a yearly fee to own their animal then MAYBE it will prevent some of the people that want a dog for the wrong reasons as it’s too much hassle (they are obviously not genuine dog lovers so why would they want to pay to keep one). Obviously for this to work it would have to be quite a substantial fee and I am aware that this may stop genuine dog lovers from being able to give a dog a god home because they just can’t afford it.

Before anything can change though their must be stricter laws against back yard breeding. Unfortunately Pit Bull Terriers are banned in this country (I don’t agree with this law but that’s another story!) BUT because of back yard breeding it’s still not at all difficult to get hold of a Pit Bull puppy. What’s more worrying is, despite this law, very few of these people that have Pits are prosecuted because most police men, dog wardens etc cannot tell a true Pit bull and are often told when they question owners that their dogs are Staffi cross breeds. We used to have a Rhodisian Ridgeback and were approached by a police man who thought she was a Pit (dumbass!) What’s the point of having a law if this happens. Because (most of the time) the law is not enforced (because of ignorance more than anything else) dog fighting and puppy milling with banned breeds is still alive and well and it’s the dogs that are suffering more than people.

I’m not sure if I answered your question but that’s just my opinion and experience on the situation.

Ban the DEED not the BREED.

I think certain people should be banned from having dogs (or children for that matter) but I would not ban a breed of dog.

I don’t know what to think because one of my friends was brutally attacked by a dog who’s owner was irresponsible. I feel bad for dogs under these circumstances because it all depends on the owner, that is their major influence. But I don’t think it would decrease the amount of dogs with irresponsible owners, out here in the country who is to know they have dogs. There is too big of a loop hole. So really I am not against it and I’m not for it.

Dog breeds are considered dangerous not because of actual danger but because of people’s fear of them. Mastiffs are huge and people are scared of them. They are also sweet, wonderful dogs who don’t understand why people are afraid of them. I have never known any pit bulls but I have known other dogs that could be considered vicious. Ever met a terrier? They were bred to kill rodents. Rats and rabbits aren’t so small a step from other household pets. I’m sure some of the bigger breeds could even harm children. What about Labradors? They are hunting dogs. They are also considered standard, American dogs. Martha Stewart has Chows. They are Chinese fighting dogs.

I’ve said this before and I’m sure I’ll say it again. Dogs are predators. People forget that, but it is the absolute truth. Dogs need to be treated with respect and anyone who doesn’t treat dogs with respect should not be allowed to have them.