Should Pits (and other large breeds) Require Special Licenses?

You know, my response to this topic is 3 words that in my opinion says it all:

"DEED, NOT BREED."

And most dogs learn their "deeds", or lack of restraint from certain "deeds", from humans.

'Nuff said.

 

ANY breed can become an aggressive animal if not properly trained and socialized. To target particular breeds is absurd. And do you actually think the people who engage in dog fighting are going to obey such a law anyway? If they don't obey the law that prohibits dog fighting why would you think they would obey a law that requires additional licenser?

And limited searches? What would that do? As I mentioned above... the people engaging in dog fights would certainly come up with ways to keep it underground... so all that a search would do is take away some personal freedom and privacy from an individual just because they have a pit bull.

I don't think this is a good idea at all.

 

very good point dude .. took me a couple tries. i am so afraid of pits its not funny.

When i was younger and dating a guy whom had Rottie his Bro in law swung me around in circles by my legs and the dog tried to bite me.

I don't trust dogs that get treated like shit.

I know a few owners and the fewest owners that treat their dogs like gold i respect. if i am walking the park , i will let the owner have the dog come up to me . Jumpy dogs i am afraid of .
my fear! i dunno.

 

a

 

any time the govt steps in , we lose a little chunk of our freedom. people need to be accountable , stop passing blame.

 

Pixeewinged, I think your post was very well thought out and reasoned and respectful. Thank you for that. You DO in fact made good points, especially the way you presented it. If it were done the way you presented it and kept that way, I could possibly agree to such ordinances...

The only reason I don't and won't is because like others have said, allowing the government to step into our personal lives and mess with our personal freedoms even more than they already are. Why encourage them? And they won't stop there, if such a thing were put in place... it would open the door to even MORE government interference concerning pet ownership. It may happen anyway but why speed the process up?

As much as I'd love to make this country a better place for dogs by targeting bad dog OWNERS rather than the dogs themselves, it's kind of a difficult decision between that and avoiding more government interference. And if it's only per-city, you know what will happen? All the bad dog owners will simply find loopholes or move to the cities without the ordinances. It'd have to be country-wide, and therefore more government involvement, to have any real effect.

 

That is a slippery-slope logical fallacy. You might as well argue that legalizing gay marriage leads to polygamy.