I heard of a community in Florida that had proposed a licence and insurance be required of Pitt Bull owners. The licence would not be issued until the City could verify the dogs enclosure and the owners insurance coverage.
2007-05-30 06:14:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets ➔ Dogs
As a bully breed owner, of course I am against BSL and singling out certain types of breeds for banishment or punishment. However, I think an owner's license is not "punishment" and is a great idea. "Pit bulls" are NOT just "another dog". These breeds require a great deal of knowledge and education (about the breed, not in general) to own RESPONSIBLY. A license would require owners to step up to the plate and be willing to agree to the terms of the license in order to own it. Those owners who are not willing to do what it takes to obtain a license probably wouldn't be willing to do alot of other things that are necessary for responsible ownership. I think a license would help reduce the number of irresponsible owners, if implemented properly. Just as with owning a car, the license should require that all pit bull owners pass a knowledge test, agree to enroll their dog in obedience class/training, and agree to relinquish their dog if any incidents occur during which the dog was placed or placed others in danger. Perhaps this is harsh, but the result would be owners who are willing to give alot time and effort just to own the dog. It stands to make sense that that same time and effort would be applied throughout the dog's life. Versus those irresponsible owners who obtain pit bulls VERY easily, and then are allowed to do with them whatever they wish. A license will by no means solve the problem, but would help to weed out the responsible from the irresponsible on some level.
2007-05-30 08:54:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
A good pet doesn't turn on her owner when she has puppies, and many pit bulls are good pets; some are WONDERFUL pets! People-loyalty is a trait that has been bred into the pit bull for centuries. If your daughter's pit recognizes your daughter as master and trusts her, she will never turn on her. Dogs usually only turn on their owners if their owner hurts them or intimidates them, if the dog catches a disease, especially a (keep her healthy, vaccinated, and contained and this won't happen), or if the dog has behavioral problems inbred. Sometimes dogs at maturity (~1 yr) do try to challenge their owners for position as "pack leader" if the dog feels the position is open. This can be easily prevented or swayed if you lead with a steady yet firm hand. Another thing that will greatly help is getting the dog fixed before that ever happens. Unless your daughter has done years of research in pits and breeding, has a detailed family history of her dog's parents and grandparents, participates in pit bull competitions, and her dog has won awards, and she already has loving homes lined up for the puppies, she has no business breeding the dog anyway. There are sooo many homeless pits running around because someone decided to let their pet get pregnant. My gymnastics trainer's wife bred pit bulls--he had the gym, she had her dogs. About three times a year (that's how many litters they produced in a year), she used to bring the puppies to the gym for a few hours everyday so that the little girls would handle the pups until they were bought and taken to permanent homes. Mama dog (always champion in ABPT club competitions) would just lie down on the floor a few feet away and nap while we picked up and cuddled her puppies. This is what you can expect from any well-bred, well-raised dog, pit bull or not.
2016-05-17 05:19:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as a bad dog only bad owners.
How ever certain breeds such as powerful working breeds like the pit bull, doberman, persa canrio, etc........ have traits that enable them to perform their jobs i.e. guarding etc...... It is important that the owner understands their breeds characteristics so the owner can prevent unwanted traits such as aggression towards people, children, other animals from developing. Licenses and insurance would be a good idea for owners who have in one way or the other shown that they are not in control of their dogs behavior. Being an owner / breeder/ & exhibitor of the "Apollo of dogs" Great Danes I do not feel that I or any other owner of a powerfull breed should have to be licensed or insured with out cause. My 150lbs Dane (hunters of 600 lb + wild boars) is far more behaved and responsive than any lab, golden, or mutt that I have met. I am the lead handler at a Kennel so believe me I have dealt with hundreds of different dogs. It would probably surprise you to know that 85% of the most aggressive dogs that we have had at our facility and that have started fights with other dogs or lashed out at human handlers were labs and golden retreivers.
2007-05-30 06:42:55 · answer #3 · answered by Eava 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No more than any other breed. Why not dobermans, rottweilers, German Shephers and wolf hybrids? Also, the problem with laws like this is enforcement. There are always too few enforcement officers to enforce the laws we have now, such as the leash law (which requires people to keep dogs confined on their owner's property or under their control anyway). I don't think it's helpful. Funding and staffing to enforce the dog laws we have now would go a lot farther than this law. That and pushing spay and neuter programs so there are a lot fewer dogs being badly bred only to be abandoned or destroyed in shelters.
2007-05-30 06:25:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. It shouldn't have anything to do with insurance. The license should have to do with a reference from a vet, a spay/neuter pre-paid certificate (a temp. license is issued until completion of the spay/neuter), and the breeder's name and info.
On top of that, only "PB" breed club certified breeders should be allowed to breed the dogs. A hefty fee for breeder licensing should go to the club and the state - partially refundable with each competition win (CH status, agility status, etc). If any sold dog is neglected or turned into a fighting machine, then the breeder is fined $5000.
This would stop the overbreeding of poor quality and poor temperament dogs.
2007-05-30 06:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not only Pit owners should have this-Every dog owner should have insurance on the dog and FOR the dog (for all pets, if possible. I'm still deciding on an insurance plan for my group at the moment-and I have a great dane). Every pet owner should be licensed. It'd stop a lot of negligence.
2007-05-30 06:21:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Those dogs are no different than a rottweiler or a basset hound. It's the owners who train them to be that way. It's NOT THE BREED. I frequent our local dog park often, and there are several pit bulls who are very friendly and sociable. They play well with other dogs and are gentle with the smaller dogs. I am not worried about letting them near my two Boston terriers. The people who say that the pit breed is bad, are un-educated and ignorant. You can train a beagle to be just as vicious as some pit bills that are plastered all over the news. If they make it a law for one breed, it has to be the same across the board.
2007-05-30 06:25:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you think it should be required to have an owners license and insurance on your kids??? No, if they do it for the breed Pit then they should do it FOR ALL DOGS AND NOT SINGLE ON TYPE OUT!
2007-05-30 06:49:27 · answer #8 · answered by be happier own a pitbull 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Most pit bull owners have outstanding warrants. tf
Follow up: Ok, Ok you are all upset, however, where I live (in scary town USA) it is true. Most of my neighbors have warrants and floodlights on 24-7, but no driver license, passport, green card, dental records, or SSN. They hardly wash the dogs, so why would they buy them a license & insurance?
I'm sorry! Sad but true.
2007-05-30 06:22:30 · answer #9 · answered by Knick Knox 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
NOPE-That kind of action originates with ignorant people. It is without question, an action based on media and not bonafide statistical data. If the proposers of this ordinance conducted proper research, they'd find they're literally barking up the wrong tree. This is discriminatory.
2007-05-30 06:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋