1. Welcome to Pit Bull Chat!

    We are a diverse group of Pit Bull enthusiasts devoted to the preservation of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

    Our educational and informational discussion forum about the American Pit Bull Terrier and all other bull breeds is a venue for members to discuss topics, share ideas and come together with the common goal to preserve and promote our canine breed of choice.

    Here you will find discussions on topics concerning health, training, events, rescue, breed specific legislation and history. We are the premier forum for America’s dog, The American Pit Bull Terrier.

    We welcome you and invite you to join our family.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

License dog owners instead of banning the breed?

Discussion in 'Dog Debates' started by tracie2114, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. Beret

    Beret Bullyflop

    This. True, the irresponsible thug owners who already ignore license and leash laws that this would still ignore the rule. However, for those borderline owners, at least being required to acknowledge some basic information could do a lot to promote responsibility.

    Also, if such a license/test were required, the idiots with dogs running loose could be held to a higher standard of accountability... BEFORE their HA pit bull mauls a toddler. Perhaps if this system of licensing responsible owners were in place, the general public would be less likely to jump to "ban the vicious pit bull" and come on board with the reasonable people who understand that accidents boil down to the owner.
  2. LovePup

    LovePup Good Dog

    No they wouldn't. They'd still get the slap on the wrist 'don't do it again' as they already do.
  3. Beret

    Beret Bullyflop

    Not if the penalty system was amended too:

    1. Unleashed & unlicensed dog/owner: Permanent seizure by AC. Lifetime ban on owning in that municipality. Breaking ban holds criminal liability.

    2. Unlicensed dog/owner: Impoundment by AC until licensure and payment of fine.

    3. Unleashed but licensed dog/owner: 2 strike rule, 1st time: impoundment/fine; 2nd time: revocation of license and permanent seizure by AC.

  4. LovePup

    LovePup Good Dog

    Sounds like the laws we already have....
  5. ChocolateMadison

    ChocolateMadison Little Dog

    Yeah? Now think of what would happen if we let EVERYONE drive. Everyone that is too afraid to drive because of the law that doesn't have a license will get a car and do whatever. 12 year olds that have never driven a car before? Sure! Immigrants that don't know our road signs? NO PROBLEM!

    Drivers ED exists for a reason. To educate people on driving. It's not completely bullet proof but it's a lot better than just letting people go all willy nilly in the streets. Obedience training exists for a reason too. I'm not saying temperament test your dogs or they die. Take them to obedience class. If they can pass they get the license. It provides education, socialization, and training all in one.
  6. LovePup

    LovePup Good Dog

    I know a LOT of people who have obtained a Drivers License without Drivers ED. :P THANK YOU.

    All I am saying is, ITS ALL common sense, yet it still happens. No one should have to tell you that you need to learn how to do something before you do it. No one should have to force you to have a license for anything.

    And do you not realize how many people out there drive with an expired ID, No ID or anything even though its against the law AND get by with it? No. This wouldn't stop the issue at hand. This wont stop BSL. Its just allowing the Government to have more control over a situation that they themselves cannot control.
  7. ChocolateMadison

    ChocolateMadison Little Dog

    Yeah. I know. I got mine without drivers ed. But guess what? If I didn't know the stuff on the test I wouldn't have passed. Not everyone knows the stuff on that test so they don't get their ID. They get caught they get in a lot of trouble. I know this because mine was suspended without my knowledge when I was a kid. I got absolutely destroyed for money and I sure as hell learned my lesson. It should work the same with the training. You can't pass you don't get a license. You don't have a license you get cited. That's that.

    I know people will still do things against the law. That's where punishment comes in. If you actually deal a strict punishment instead of "Here's a slap on the wrist don't do it again" people will be a lot more afraid of breaking the law. Obviously NOTHING is 100% but it's a lot better than letting people get by with being idiots and ruining dog ownership for everyone.
  8. LovePup

    LovePup Good Dog

    I didn't study. I just took the test and drove. :P Passed. Used common Sense.

    And sweet heart, you can throw punishment in all you want. People are still going to be people. We are Flawed beings who thinks the world belongs to us and that we don't have to follow anyone else's rules. Laws will continue to be broken no matter what degree of punish you put behind it.
  9. ChocolateMadison

    ChocolateMadison Little Dog

    There will always be some but a more strict punishment will damn sure keep more from doing bad things than not. But sure. I guess we could just leave it like this or take government out of it completely. Because who cares if uneducated people get a hold of our breed and make a worse name right?
  10. tracie2114

    tracie2114 Little Dog

    Well I sure wouldn't want the doctor operating on me or the lawyer representing me to not have a license
  11. catchrcall

    catchrcall Good Dog Staff Member

    We don't need any more damn nanny laws. Why would we give yet another government agency another tool to steal our dogs? Most animal control agencies already flirt with violating the illegal search and seizure part of the constitution, why give them more freedom to do as they please without regards to the rights of an individual dog owner? It doesn't make sense. To top it all off we have so called "welfare" organizations helping them out. We don't need them having more control. It's all just a foot in the door for somebody to eventually tell us what we can own and what we can do with it, and we don't need to help them take it away.
  12. Fieldmarshal

    Fieldmarshal Big Dog

    Yes, lets waste even more tax payer money on BSL and useless bureaucracy.

    So now you have this license that magically makes you a responsible and educated dog owner...oh that's not how reality works?...a shame, so in reality the license simply becomes a way of keeping government records of people who own certain breeds and extorting even more money from pet owners in the name of licensing fees. So no...next idea please..
  13. LovePup

    LovePup Good Dog

    Field, Sometimes I love your Straight to Point Post :P
  14. tracie2114

    tracie2114 Little Dog

    The problem is that nobody is reading the original post or the article.. OF COURSE we would all choose NO BSL... The article, for those that did not read and just chose to rant, is an interview with an experienced trainer in Canada with 15+ years of experience, especially with breeds deemed "dangerous". She was asked her opinion on BSL regarding pit bull or "pit bull type" dogs (no other breeds).. She said that pit bulls were bred to be friendly to humans and should have no HA. She said she doesn't blame the dogs she blames the owners. She said banning the breed is not going to do any good because the people that own them just for the sake of having a "mean" or "dangerous" dog will just go out and get another breed like a Presa Canario. Besides, she believes that pit bulls are wonderful dogs and the entire breed should not be punished due to irresponsible owners and instead make the owners held accountable and pass a test or something instead of banning the entire breed.

    Everyone jumped on about how thats just a form of BSL and the goverment should but out and we don't need the government involved etc etc... however, if you are only given TWO choices A- BSL or B- take a test to prove you are compitent.. there is no C- NO BSL because if that was a choice then this would be a stupid thing to post because obviously duh we would all choose C ... nobody is saying "yea we want to take a test or have our dogs pass a CDC or TT test just for the hell of it" .. it was between the two choices and as Cliff said, if their dobie had to take the test, he would fail, but if it were between their dog dying or killing the entire breed then thats what they would do...

    I watch the posts on here and how if a newbie comes with a post about either, "my dog got out of my yard and killed a chicken" or "my dog was off leash and killed another dog" or "my dog is HA but I dont' want to PTS".. everyone jumps down their throat about the good of the breed and how they are making it bad for everyone but when given a choice to either take a fucking test that, (and like everyone said "any moron can pass a test") or passing BSL I am sure if this were reality and not a "what if" you would take the test so you could keep your dog..

    No shit, if I had a choice I would say no BSL, government say out of it... but for the sake of debate the choices were A or B and if your dog probably wouldn't pass the test so you choose the other option which would be ALL pit bulls get put down then how is THAT helping the breed?

    That's no different than going to the doctor and the doctor saying you have a highly contagious fatal disease... you can either A. take this pill to keep from spreading the disease and saving your life OR B. spread the disease and you die along with everyone else.. you can't say "No doc, I think I will take option C and not have the disease"..
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2012
  15. Fieldmarshal

    Fieldmarshal Big Dog

    Did you miss the part where its the doctor who infected you with the disease in the first place?...and now comes back and gives you two options for a partial cure?....Its the govt that started BSL....and no amount of pussy footing around the issue is going to make BSL in any shape or form ok.

    By accepting any other option other than to completely remove BSL all together, you are validating the idea that BSL is some form is ok, and are willing to allow the govt to hold your rights to a ransom...well if you take this test..get this license..pay that fee..dance on your tippy toes...we might allow you to have your dog....how about no.

    If your going to fight BSL, you have to fight all of it, adding extra red tape in the form of tests and licensing is simply going to cost more tax payer money with no real benefit to anyone. It muddies the whole issues and makes a outright repeal of BSL in the future even more difficult, because you have created a scenario where the govt can profit from BSL, and the govt is not going to let it go easily, the likely scenario would be that they would try to make even more money, not less.

    I like my govt to as less as possible...because the less they do..the less they screw up. I don't have to accept any form of BSL, if we had BSL here, i would fight all of it, i would never consider any other half assed option.
  16. tracie2114

    tracie2114 Little Dog

    Ok well you don't have to "accept" but if say you live in the UK and they pass it you really don't have much of an option and i am sure if Lennox's owners were given the option to take a test to save their dog I am pretty sure they would have done it... Doesn't mean they "accepted" it... But IF the government DID/DOES step in there really isn't much you can do except TRY to have it over turned and some places are successful but until it actually does get over turned you do what you have to to save your dog
  17. Fieldmarshal

    Fieldmarshal Big Dog

    Well obviously you have work within the confines of the law till you can get it repealed, no one is trying to argue that.

    But we are arguing what you posted in your OP...the idea of licensing people instead of outright BSL and breed ban...and i said...no because its equally retarded.
  18. tracie2114

    tracie2114 Little Dog

    That's saying the same thing... If they are inevitably GOING to have a breed ban and everyone fights it and they say tough shit then someone, like the experienced trainer that they respect her opinion, says well instead just do a test then yeah if it this (BSL) or that (test) I will choose the test. Obviously until it actually becomes an issue in my town I will continue to fight it and not accept it...The original post was more for "ok they are going to enforce this in your area but instead you have this option" .. The scenario I was saying was that the government has already stepped in so you really don't have much of a choice except for B as your only other option...
  19. Tiffseagles

    Tiffseagles GRCH Dog Premium Member

    The test is still BSL. BSL doesn't have to be a ban. Any legislation that targets dogs based on breed/appearance is BSL. Any breed advocate should not support any form of BSL, especially in areas that do not already have it in place.

    In terms of methods of the actual evaluation:

    ATTS would be stupid. A dog would be seized if it didn't like walking on bubble wrap or any weird surface.

    The CGC would fail any dog-reactive-dog, regardless of if they are friendly or aggressive.

    Shelter assessments are IME often worthless or totally off-base. Reasons for failing a shelter assessment could be things like: aggression towards cats, dog reactivity, dog selectivity/aggression, etc.

    And just because you take a test and know the answers doesn't mean that 1) you agree with them or 2) that you'll be a good pet owner. A test will not change how much you value your dog or other people.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2012
  20. tracie2114

    tracie2114 Little Dog

    True but IF the government of your town or city came to the ppl with these TWO options then they are already prepared to put a full ban in place and giving you the option to still have your dog but pass a test. No a test will not prove how much you value your dog but it will allow you to KEEP your dog which if the full ban was passed your dog is dead anyway...

    As cliff said, if MY dog failed the test I would rather he be PTS than ALL the breed PTS... Either way if my dog failed the test, if I failed the test or the full ban was put in place my dog is dead regardless.

Share This Page