I am all for BSL!

[ir0n]

Ok calm down... I am for legislation, NOT banning.

I propose that provinces/states/municipalities adopt a policy of restriction instead of banning. The problem is that too many people own dogs because they like the look or reputation of a certain breed, and they know NOTHING about dogs, or their advanced needs. When you have a newbie owning something like a rottie, or a pitt... you get trouble waiting to happen (read some of the stuff on these boards and it makes a strong case for that statement)

In Canada, you need a license to own and use a firearm. There are restricted guns, and special owner permits for some kinds of guns (handguns, semi-automatic etc.) You need to be trained and tested to be eligible.

In the province of Ontario, I have a class G driver's license. This allows me to legally drive "Any car, van or small truck or combination of vehicle and towed vehicle up to 11,000 kg provided the towed vehicle is not over 4,600 kg."

To drive a motorcycle, I need to get trained and tested to become eligible... to drive a school bus, I need to get trained and tested to become eligible...

Can anyone see where I am going with this yet?

NOBODY should own a "powerful breed" when they have no experience with dogs. While yes, any breed can potentially become a problem in the wrong hands, some breeds are obviously more potential for trouble than others (I don't think anyone can deny that).

I suggest that anyone that wants to own a dog should have to be trained and accredited to own a dog. This is your "G-class" owners license and allows you to own the G-rated breeds.

Have some experts classify certain breeds with different experience levels. A large powerful breed such as a Rot, Pitt, Mastiff, Corso, or any of the other "usual suspects" can be restricted to more advanced and better trained owners. (would you let someone learn to drive with a bus full of kids? Hell no!)

Will this eliminate incidents? No... I do think it will reduce them drastically though!

[Gary Madore]

Your idea, although magnificent, has one fatal flaw: This sort of legislation (making people themselves accountable and/or having to earn the right to own/do things) is not what gets politicians relected and so would likely never see the light of day.

BSL isn't about safety or anything else noble. It's about politicians cashing in on public hysteria that is fueled by an opportunistic media. Politicians need to be seen to be doing something - and they don't care if it's nonsensical as long as it satisfies the majority of people (even if they are completely ignorant and misguided).

Your plan would, no doubt, see enormously favourable results, but the outrage and outcry of people who feel their individual "rights" are being infringed upon would guarantee that any politician who voted in favour of it would find themselves out of work.

We, and our dogs, are at the mercy of the average voter, and the average voter is an idiot.

Bummer.

Cheers!

Gary

[targonrotts]

the people who break the rules anyway, will still do what they want...
restricting or banning is not the answer.
any breed of dog is capable of damage in the wrong hands, as well as capable of being abused.
i am all for educating the general public on dog care, safety, responsibility.

[dr1ve4fun]

While we are at it why don't we put restrictions on everything else. Unless you have enough "experience" you can't buy a good computer, nice car, big house, good vacuum, condoms, or a pool. Even better, you can't take baths unless there is a trained lifeguard on duty. I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. Who is going to enforce these laws? Where is the money going to come from? What's going to stop people from just getting the breed they want anyways? What about all the shelter dogs? I keep hearing about how many rottweilers there are in shelters from the people that think it is there responsibility to decide if my dogs should be spayed. All the resources that would need to be put into something like that could be better used. Why not offer things like a free basic obedience class to get it into peoples heads how important training is? Everyone likes free things and if they enjoy it they will probably go back and do more.

[ir0n]

The difference is that none of those things are harmful to people except perhaps the pool... and they do have laws about those in most places.

All of them have safety regulations built into them as well... but you cannot make an animal more safe in manufacturing.

[dr1ve4fun]

How are they not harmful? A computer with internet access can get someone who is not all that smart about strangers into trouble. They have no regulations in place. A nice car can easily get you into an accident because they are usually faster. The same regulations are there for all cars. A house is just a pain to clean and maintain. A vacuum can be dangerous if you stick your hand in it or run over someones feet. Condoms... A pool is dangerous and the only regulation they might have is that you need to put a fence around it. The point wasn't really those specific things. It was that anything can be dangerous. Are we going to put restrictions on all of them? The only thing that makes a dog dangerous is the person that is responsible for them. I think instead of just saying no you can't have this dog we should try to educate them. Every breed is different. Just because you have had a cocker spaniel doesn't mean your now experienced enough to have a rottweiler. I can see in many ways how someone who just researches the breed before getting a dog is more prepared then someone who neglected to do any research because they have had other types of dogs before. Experience with a dog isn't experience with all dogs.

[poohbearsmom]

Education is the only answer to the problems that exist between dogs and humans.

People need to be accountable for their property, and any damage their property causes. Period.

There are leash ordinances in nearly every municipality/county/province, etc... that if reinforced properly would end a lot of problems.

Most dog bites occur to known people or family members. Education is the key. \

When people come on here fearful that their "puppy is aggressive" and can't understand why their puppy defends it's food bowl, it is painfully obvious that people don't research and educate themselves properly before purchasing an animal with teeth and a brain.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by ir0n

All of them have safety regulations built into them as well... but you cannot make an animal more safe in manufacturing.

I disagree 100%. The difference between someone to puts two dogs together without considering a thing other than just because they "have" them and a bonafide reputable breeder who not only works and health tests their dogs, but spends hours upon hours researching, studying, and discussing the characteristics of the bloodlines being considered most CERTAINLY make an "animal more safe in manufacturing".

[poohbearsmom]

Originally Posted by moondog

I disagree 100%. The difference between someone to puts two dogs together without considering a thing other than just because they "have" them and a bonafide reputable breeder who not only works and health tests their dogs, but spends hours upon hours researching, studying, and discussing the characteristics of the bloodlines being considered most CERTAINLY make an "animal more safe in manufacturing".

A big fat YUP is in order here.

[ir0n]

Think what you want, but I don't believe that temperament is a genetic trait at all (apart from the wiring being bad which can happen even from good bloodlines) I think that junk is made up by people who won't admit they are bad parents.

[althor]

you are exactly right, it is like gun law legislation. The criminals arent all of a sudden gonna stop breaking the laws. So in affect only those who are already responsible will take the adverse side affects.

[taim]

"Don't tread on me."

Seriously, how about you learn to let other people live their own lives free of intrusion by busy body do gooders who want to restrict, regulate, and at times punish law abiding citizens for acts that should not be a crime. Instead how about focussing on people who misuse or mistreat their dogs and legislating against irresponsible and dangerous owners regardless of the breed?

Who are you, or more importantly any government agency, to say whether or not someone has enough experience to do anything? There are plenty of licensed drivers and gun owners who don't meet my safety standards for either. By the same token there are people who would find my standards either too lax or too strict. There will always be criminals who ignore the law. The legislation stops nothing and hinders law abiding citizens.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by ir0n

..I don't believe that temperament is a genetic trait at all (apart from the wiring being bad which can happen even from good bloodlines) I think that junk is made up by people who won't admit they are bad parents.

Bad wiring can be genetic, but good wiring can't? LOL, please make some sense.

There is nature....and there is nurture. BOTH, not one or the other. The next most important thing reputable breeders do is make sure they know their puppy buyers as well as their puppies so the best possible match can be made.

And lastly, be careful what you wish for, it may just come true.

[Liz2925]

It is much easier for the government to take away our freedom than it is for us to regain whatever that freedom may have been. Why would anyone request that the governing bodies of our county control ownership of certain breeds of dogs? That is our freedom of choice. To voluntarily give up any freedom in any way is a mistake because the chance that we could, one day, reverse that decision is so incredablly slim.

[poohbearsmom]

Originally Posted by ir0n

Think what you want, butI don't believe that temperament is a genetic trait at all (apart from the wiring being bad which can happen even from good bloodlines) I think that junk is made up by people who won't admit they are bad parents.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth...wow...You say you don't believe temperament is genetic, yet you state that parents with good temperaments can produce dogs with bad temperaments.... Oy vay. Contrary to popular belief, many of the dogs who are handshy and timid are not this way because they've been beaten.... it's weak temperament. A correctly wired dog can have many bad things happen to him, and bounce back quite nicely... it's us humans who like to give these animals dramatic histories so they can "feel good for saving the poor wretch", and other silly things... Temperament is for life, behaviors can be modified, but temperament is for LIFE - from the first breath to the last.

You can believe what you want, but it is proven that temperament is genetic, both in humans and in animals. I bet you think the moonlanding was a sham, too.

Good temperaments usually beget good temperaments.... and you are correct in one thing, just because two temperaments are good, doesn't mean they will mesh well.... there are other relatives in the cake mix, too, and sometimes poop just happens, but with thoughtful breeding practices, the odds are a lot higher that all will be well.

Nature AND Nurture play a big part in how a dog turns out, and yes, there are dogs who are not wired right, just like there are people who are not wired right.

This is a people problem. It starts with BYBs and puppy mills, and plain and simple irresponsible human behavior. It comes from people wanting instant gratification before really thinking about what a life changing decision it is to acquire a dog. It comes from ignorance, plain and simple.

If each person who owns a dog would simply go to the library and READ a book or two on behavior, we'd all be a little better off.

When we place restrictions on people as you propose to do, irOn, the law abiding people will abide by the law... the nefarious faction will continue to break the law.

Education EDUCATION EDUCATION is the only way to make living with dogs safer and more enjoyable.