Should Certain dogs be classified as Illegal to own without a licsence?

Question

If so which ones?

I mean the dogs known of a unstable temperament, and the aggressiveness the can get

Answer 1

Certain breeds should be reserved for ownership to only certain people and require a license.

If a specific dog is aggressive and dangerous, it should be destroyed and no body should own it.

Answer 2

As there are only a few dog breeds that were purely bred for fighting and one of them, isn't even on the dangerous dog list (That's believe it or not the Shar Pei) it shows it's not the breed of a dog that is the problem. Some of the most 'feared' breeds like Rottweilers and Dobermans were not bred to fight, They were bred to guard and work with sheep and cattle!!! The German Shepherd (Alsation) is one of the most popular and versatile working dogs in the world from Shepherding sheep to Seeing Eye or Dog's for the disabled, and every type of 'rescue' work, yet many people think they are aggressive.
I 'rescue' all my dogs and have to prove I can house them, Have a Vet check and prove I know a lot about the breed (GSD's) or dog's in general I also have to have them 'neutered' get insurance and if necessary take them to obedience training.
If all owners were vetted this way we might have less problems or higher standards of ownership and breeding!
There will always be those who break the law though and making a dog breed 'illegal' doesn't stop that happening.
Very few dogs are 'born bad' it's US HUMANS that make them that way by design (It's so cool having an aggressive looking dog > Bull sh*t) or accident!

Sorry for the rant but it makes me so angry when people 'Blame the Dog'

Answer 3

Well,as far as I know,in Ohio ALL dogs are illegal to own without a license,over the age of 3 months.I think you might be talking about a "special license" for dogs considered aggressive"?Like Pit Bulls,Rotts,etc.?In Ohio,there are many lawsuits being filed,because,even I ,believe each dog is different,and an entire breed should not be classified as "viscious" because they have reputations as being agressive.All dogs can be agressive,some more than others.Maybe laws such as no pitts in homes with children under a certain age would be more effective.

Answer 4

I vote no. Too many dogs will be overlooked that can GREAT pets. I had a Pit Bull/Boxer mix and everyone assumed that the pit bull part would make her aggressive. To tell the truth she was the best dog I ever owned and miss her everyday. We rescued her from a shelter and she was about to be put down, because people were afraid of her breed. If licensing was mandatory then that would show the world that these great dogs are to be treated differently. It is not the dog, it is the owner and how they raise their dog. Just Love them.......

Answer 5

NO that is BS!!! Dogs are dogs discriminating against one breed is just that, discrimination. lots of people have a fear of dogs unless they are poodles and they expect the rest of the world to cater to those fears. No way. If any laws need to be passed they should be passed against irresponsible pet owners. Just because some jerk wants to buy a pit or a Rott and show off how mean it is (cause he made him that way) cause he thinks it makes him cool shouldn't influence what breed I am able to own. Thats crap. !! Those decisions are made out of fear and don't solve the problem. Uhm aren't there like millions of dollars being spent every year to "save the bears" and "save the tigers" . Maybe a few of the people who feel this way should take a look at their local sex offender registry then decide if they would like to pour their efforts into Banning a certain breed of dog or maybe with somone like that down the street its not a bad idea to go get a Rott or Pit or Chow huh?

OMG i had to edit scientific fact! that some breeds are more hostile!! prove it please e-mail it to me cause i've done my homework and thats a bunch of CRAP! Furthermore I shouldn't have to prove anything. I don't ask my neighbors to prove they aren't pedifiles. And the other one that likened a dog to a ceriel killer "tearing people to shreds for know reason" come on give me a break aftrer you go to your local police department and find the sex offender registry why don't you then try to find out how many people in your area have violent crimes on their record. then see if your worried about the dogs.

Answer 6

I think people should be licensed to have dogs. In general most dogs are trainable unless they have something intrinsically wrong with there mental makeup.
I my experience it is the people that need training more than the animals.
Just as you have to be licensed to drive a car; a potentially useful machine made dangerous by the driver. So should you be trained to care for and handle an animal.

Answer 7

All dogs should have a licence.
The cost should be dependant on the type and size.
It should also be compulsory for certain types to have insurance (both my Rottweilers have one).
And the owners of Guard dogs and even Staffs should have to have a test that the dog is trained and the owner is responsible.
Maybe then only people who care about dogs will keep one.

Answer 8

According to the American Temperament Testing Association (ATT)... in which a dog is put through a series of confrontational situations the pit bull scored a higher score than the beagle and just slightly better than the Golden retriever... so to answer your question yes, I think OWNERS should be licensed to own a dog.. including pits and even beagles.... but I'm guessing that wasn't the answer you wanted to hear...

Answer 9

Who would make this kind of decision? We would be better off if some people had to get a license to own a dog.

Answer 10

Yes I think so, breeding fighting dogs should be licenced and checked on routinely. In the UK the licence was stopped for every dog but I also think that should be reintroduced, at the appropriate level this time.