|
Post by Aussienot on Apr 18, 2004 20:13:44 GMT -5
I'm thinking of Chows, Akitas and Wolf hybrids, but there are other breeds as well.
Are some breeds dogs so very different, so particularly prone to the triple threat combination of aggression, dominance and independence, that there should a some sort of qualifing process to own them?
Aggression on its own is one problem- most owners can find trainers qualified to help with that. Dominance, same thing. It's not hard to learn to control dominance. Independence is a different story. In my opinion, few owners know how to sucessfully motivate independent dogs and few trainers do either. It's the combination of all three factors that makes Chows unsuitable as pets in most households.
The two dogs involved in Veegas bite - my perception is that the owners may have bought for looks and have no idea how to manage this breed.
I'll admit I don't know what the qualifying process would be, (licensing, training, testing) how it would be administered or who would do it.
Just wondering what you all think of the idea - in theory?
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Apr 18, 2004 20:52:41 GMT -5
Well I do think there should be some restrictions on ownership of the breeds you named. My neighbors have a male chow, and I will admit this in not my favorite breed for many reasons. These people took the time to take him to a specialized trainer who put him through Alpha Dog Training. They told me that without that kind of training especially with the males intact or not, they would have had a very dangerous animal on their hands. You should see this dog. He is so mellow and could care less if other dogs are around. He listens well, is great around strangers, likes kids and up untill this point every chow I had ever known had some sort of bite history. Yes I think everyone who wants to own a breed like that needs to be involved with a trainer who can help them without it not only is the dog the liablity so are the owners.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 29, 2004 22:50:38 GMT -5
You know what if people were actually help responsible for the actions of thier dogs IN ALL CASES not just when someone is seriously hurt or maimed then maybe you would see fewer dumbasses owning these breeds..
If the demand goes down then the BYB's and the puppymills have less incentive to crank out genetically inferior nerve bags and maybe some of these maligned breeds can regain thier dignity and good reputations.
I mean just because a breed is independent or has guarding tendencies doesn't mean it is inherently mean. Even an independent dog - if domesticated, is dependent on man by the very definition of domestication. Biting the hand that feeds is a trait that would be selected against historically...so I think alot of these behaviors we see with these breeds have as much to do with present day poor breeding practices as with ignorant owners who grovel to these standoffish guys begging for attention.
Does my rant make sense?
Bottom line - no I don't think a breed liscence would help. I think it is over-governing and borders on breed discrimination. But I do think that breeders or importers of these breeds should be required to tell their customers exactly what they are getting. The reputable ones do this anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Apr 30, 2004 9:03:48 GMT -5
You know what if people were actually help responsible for the actions of thier dogs IN ALL CASES not just when someone is seriously hurt or maimed then maybe you would see fewer dumbasses owning these breeds.. I think this is a better solution to the problem than breed specific licensing. Either that or license the owner's, not the dogs, because it's ultimately the owner's fault (in most cases) that the dogs get into trouble. Unfortunately there are not and never will be any restrictions on " dumbass's" owning dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Rowan on Oct 2, 2004 22:42:07 GMT -5
The idea has exceptional merit!!! Unfortunetly there would never be enough funding in place for personnel to be able to enforce it.
Laws like this generate more fees for owners to cover record keeping and just the added task of having a new law.
Good owners don't need a law to be good owners they do what is needed for their dogs with out any government or local intervention.
The bad owners would just break the law as they consitantly do now with all the other well intended dog laws that can not be enforced.
So the only ones to suffer by taking more money out of thier own dogs mouths, care, and training is dog owners that are not the problem.
On the idea that it would cut down BYB's is exactly the opposite. It would actually open up more opportunity for BYB's and puppy mills to over take the market in selling puppies.
If you can imagine the cost it takes to run a good breeding program. Feeding a quality diet, proper health care, testing and registering genetic results generation after generation. Then you have training cost being involved in the time it takes to expose their dogs for conditioning to make their titles. Show entries, travel, paying handlers. Most excellent breeding programs put every cent they make from puppy sales back into their dogs if they even come close to breaking even for all the money they put out.
Adding on cost of fees for licensings will effect the valid breeding programs and even take the majority of them out of business. No good breeder will continue if they can not afford to provide for their dogs. Again it will be them paying the cost of new laws, because they were law abiding in the first place. They already have fees up to $400.00 a year for each intact animal put that amount on a breeding kennel and that is alot of money going to the state and not back to the breeders own dogs.
Puppymills and BYB's yeah like their dogs ever see a red cent of the money to benifit them for all the puppies that are sold from their sufferening. These people are in it for fast profit. And they would not be affected by new laws for they are not law abiding in the first place. But knocking out all the other qualified breeders would benifit them the market would be wide open for them to fill the demand and they would up production to fill it.
Think the government / state already gets too much money out of our pockets depending on the good law abiding people to just walk through their door every year and plop it down for them. Seldom do they ever do anything to those who break the laws, never enough funding to go look for them, only if someone calls them in they may go do a report. But mostly until they can not ignore it due to complaints, not that they are going to go look for it.
|
|