Your views on dangerous dog tests for people?

Question

I believe that people who own dangerous dogs should take a 'Competent Dog Owner' Test, as those of us who drive cars take driving tests. To prove that they can handle and care for a dog responsibly. Is this good idea?

I agree that any dog can be dangerous, so therefore i think that all dog owners should take this test before the dog is allowed to walk the streets.

Answer 1

Yes I think that is a good idea because most problems with so called 'dangerous dogs' are because they are not trained properly or mistreated. It has nothing to do with the breed or look of the dog it is the owners influence which makes a dog how it is!

Answer 2

Yes I think it's a good idea. These dogs don't attack for nothing - they are brought up to be like this either through definite training to be aggressive or through bad handling from the start. Owners should be home checked and take an ownership test to own these breeds of dog. More careful monitering should also be in place - in the case of the pit bull which sadly killed the little 5 year old, enquiries due to complaints had already been carried out and the dog had proved to be aggressive previously. Its an accident that could have been avoided. xx

German Shepherds are not classed as dangerous dogs !!!!!! ANY dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands !!

Answer 3

Here is a better idea. EVERYONE who is going to get a dog of ANY TYPE should have to take a seminar/class on how to properly raise and train a dog. And the person giving the seminar should be someone who has been around REAL dogs for the last 30 years. I am so tired of hearing that there are no "bad dogs" only bad owners. That is total crap. There are dogs out there right now who would rather eat you then look at you. And some people want to have these dogs, nothing wrong with that, just make sure you understand that it is a dog, not a fury child. How many people write on here and say something as stupid as "my dog is sleeping on my bed right now, with me" and then come on a few months later and claim that their "sweet innocent dog" bit the crap out of them, and now what do we do? I have owned dogs for the last 30 years. For the last 27, I have never owned a dog that was not FORMALLY trained in protection. All of these dogs would engage a human without a second thought, but only in my defense or if I told them to. I have never had a single incident of "oh my God" my odg nailed someone. I have never had a problem of a lose dog or of any "accidents" involving my kids. I have had problems with dominance issues in my dogs and me that were resolved IMMEDIATELY and permenantly. But then again, I got these dogs knowing full well that these things would come up. I choose specific bloodlines that produce these types of dogs that fit my needs, but, I do it CONCIOUSLY. The bottom line here is that, YES, there are dogs out there that are dangerous, IN THE WRONG HANDS, it is not only people's fault. There are breeders who breed these dogs on purpose for people who need them. Everyone here has a responsibility to treat their animals like animals and not turn them into neurotic fearbiters/crap dogs that they sometimes tyrn out to be. I invite any intelligent debate/conversation on this subject through private email for the sole purpose of education and learning.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as a dangerous puppy. it is the training or lack of it the dog gets which turns it dangerous.
My dogs are fine on or off the lead.
They will walk through my neighbour's flock of sheep without bothering a single one. My neices can pull them about and dress them up and the dogs just sit there and let them. Why? Because I've trained them. However, I would never leave the girls alone with the dogs. Why? Because, I can't trust the neices to realise they are just animals not a toys.
You will never solve this problem until you stop people breeding dogs purely for profit. Licencing the breeders and getting them to take responsibilty for the people to whom they sell the dogs would stop it. At over £500 a time for each of these beauties (see picture) every breeder would have enough cash to be self funding.

Answer 5

I disagree because at times any dog can be dangerous. No matter how big or small. Yeah some dogs may have rep but the ones that you think are the most dangerous are really not as dangerous as the ones you don't think!!! I personal don't think thats a good . Because thats sereo typing the dog. And every owner doesn't teach there dog to be that way.

Answer 6

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it would be easy to determine which dogs fall under the "dangerous" category.

I know that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are what come to the forefront of most people's minds, but if I had to go by my personal experiences alone, and had never heard anything negative about those breeds, I would be convinced that the smaller, "toy" dogs exhibit far more agression.

As I said, this is judging by personal experience only... the only dogs I personally have been attacked, or threatened by, are Chihuahuas, Shih-Tzus and Fox Terrier type dogs. I grew up around Rottweilers and Pit Bulls, and believe that any of those dogs would have laid down their life for me.

I also remember my then five-year-old cousin being rushed to the emergency room because our medium-sized husky mix had attacked her face. Despite the fact that he had never had any previous agression problems whatsoever, she had tripped and fallen on him, in front of everyone, and the dog tagged her in the face before anyone had time to react. No one would have ever expected him to do anything like that... he was the sort of dog who would typically attempt to comfort a child that had just fallen down. And, of course, don't forget the recepient of the world's first face transplant, who was mauled by her pet Labrador.

What I'm saying is, no breed of dog, or combination of breeds, can ever entirely be trusted. I don't know how it's possible to differentiate between "dangerous" dogs and "safe" dogs.

You might say that the statistics are against the Pit Bull, but there are a lot of misconceptions there. It's been proven that most people cannot pick out a Pit Bull from a series of pictures; they typically lean towards a Boxer or American Staffordshire Terrier. How do you suppose they're going to identify a Pit Bull in the middle of an attack?

I've seen newspaper articles whose headline screamed "PIT BULL ATTACK," and yet the picture of the dog was a Rottweiler, or a Rhodesian Ridgeback, of all things, or just a dog of unknown ancestry. Then, of course, when the newspaper realizes their error, they write a tiny little blurb about it the next day, but the damage has already been done.

People may never see the light about Pit Bulls, but, to answer your question more specifically, I would certainly like to see something like this happen before they attempted to eradicate the breed completely.

But, like I said, how are they going to differentiate between a "dangerous" dog and a "safe" one? Do you mean dogs who already have a history of attacking... ? Because those are normally put to sleep after such a thing. You'd have to go by breed, and like I'm trying to point out, there's a lot of grey area there. I'd almost say it would have to be issued for all breeds, because any breed of dog can attack and do damage.

Even if a breed isn't LIKELY to attack, it could still happen, and then you'd have the lawsuits, saying... "why wasn't this breed covered under the Competent Owner Law, or what have you?"

Interesting, interesting...

Answer 7

it somewhat isn't any longer the bred it somewhat is the vendors. I surely have been around canines all my life. I surely have prevalent some pits to be huge toddlers, same with rottie's and dobe's. on the different hand I surely have met some advise poodles. it somewhat is the vendors physique of ideas and how the animal is raised. Now some canines have been in bread and the blood line could be undesirable, yet please do no longer Label a bred. I had a organic bread boxer some human beings concept it grew to become right into a pit and have been afraid (even however they seem distinctive). everybody is the reason animals are mistreated/knowledgeable to combat and so on.. permit's positioned a ban out on studip human beings.. this could help greater!

Answer 8

People need to be trained to train their dogs properly. A dog of any size can be vicious and cause serious injury, and it is the owners responsibility to ensure they can handle their dog appropriately. I do agree that there are breeds that are more prone to aggression, but with the right handling and training they could become wonderful pets. Owners that choose those types of dogs should be ordered by law to ensure they take a training course which qualifies them as a proficient handler.

Answer 9

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
I own a Rotti. Is this one of the dogs you would classify as a dangerous dog. So as such you are telling me you want me to take a test to prove to you I can handle this dog. Let me tell you something, I own five dogs total. And out of all of them the two that are NOT on the dangerous list are the only two that have bitten anyone. So much for your dangerous dogs huh.

Answer 10

Good idea, but also bring back the dog licence, and make people sit some sort of test before they can get the licence, also make it law to be 18 or over to own a dog. Make Private Breeding Illegal, only registered Breeders should be allowed.
By the way, i Own a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and i am NOT anti dog.