Dangerous Dog Legislation?

The legislators omitted a word! It should read "Dangerous Dog Owner Legislation.” The operative word being "Owner"!

Opposed!

Lack of education (the owner's), lack of socializing the dog, lack of training, lack of exercise. All the things that make a happy balanced dog.

They want this cute puppy then it grows up without training, socialization, no exercise. One morning they wake up from a self-inflicted nightmare and cannot understand why the dog is uncontrollable, aggressive, destroys the house and yard up or even worse they train the dog TO BE aggressive. The owner actually sets his or her own dog up to fail!

I believe before being allowed to adopt, buy or have any part of possessing a dog a person and their family, should be required to take a mini course in the care and responsibilities of owning a dog!

Oppose.

There are NO dangerous dogs, man isn't stupid enough to breed something that can kill them.

There are just dangerous owners, who don't care to train or socialize their animals, some try to make them aggressive...ect.

Oppose!

Why?
That's like saying only white people are allowed in a certain town or place. Its racist! Any dog with sound genetics can be trained right and not be aggressive. People are making these animals what they are and if you ban the so called "dangerous" ones people will just have another choice of what they will make dangerous. Most of the BSL laws are about "pit bull types" which is just insane because I know the breed very well and they can be great dogs just like any other breed. All dogs can attack.

Is there any effective laws?
Nope, not really. Even the Netherlands took there ban off "pit bull types" due to dog bites rates not going down. They are now using the money to concentrate more on leash laws and owners which is working for them.

I would support a legislation that deals with the HUMANS at fault as well as the (proven) guilty individual dogs. I WOULD NOT (and do not) support legislation that places blame on a whole breed without considering individual guilt/innocence.

All cases of dog bites can be linked to human error. Either owner neglected to socialize or train the dog, the person who bred the dog did so poorly, the dog was pushed beyond it's individual limits, the dog was teased or abused, etc. There are also cases of injury/illness which the dog reacted to with aggression.

It does no good to place blame on an animal and remove it from the human. PERIOD.

I would support legislation in this regard if it targeted the owners and not the dog.

Oppose.
It's the owners, not the dogs.
I don't think the law is effective. I still see them everywhere.

ADDED: I just got home from the dog park and while I was there, an APBT kept sneaking up behind me and licking my ears (I was leaning against a thing that the dogs can stand on, so she just kept getting up there and licking me).
And I thought of this question.
SO vicious!
>.>

oppose
There are no dangerous breeds, saying so is as foolish as "guns kill people." Remember people kill people and its the same when a dog attacks a person it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible. No not real they can say that certain types of guns are illegal, but that hasn't stopped many people from owning them.

BSL is the governments quick fix to shut people up. It doesn't address the real problem which is the owner that doesn't properly raise the dog, taking away a breed will not prevent bad people from having them, and if they do manage to get rid of them all whats going to stop them from going after another breed, or speices. In countries that have banned them people actually switched to Hyneas. We need to address the real issue instead of just covering it up.

Oh heck. I despise government shoving their crap down our throats. So, I oppose. I also oppose gun laws so you pretty much have a good idea what I am like.....

Opposed to Dangerous Dog Legislation and I would support Dangerous HUMAN Legislation. There are no bad dogs, only dogs that have been harmed by bad owners. Why should an innocent animal be punished for the acts or irresponsibilty of some allegedly superior human being. Dogs behave on instinct or what they have been trained to do or not do. Human beings are the cause of the issue, and it is BS that we drop the blame on the dog. Dogs do not think as we do. They do not reason. Humans are always the cause and are the ones that should be punished or regulated. The sad truth is that punishing the dogs is the most cost effective way but it does not solve anything. Human being have to become more responsible and be held more responsible for their actions or lack of actions.

Both. I support laws that do NOT target specific breeds and judge each dog by what IT has done and not other member of the breed. I DON'T support laws that target specific breeds and don't make the owner responsible.

Are there effective laws? Yes, there are plenty of states that have effective laws, but don't target specific breeds.

No such thing as a dangerous dog, or a bad dog. Just bad owners. The dogs, for instance, pit bulls. Do they go to their owners and ask to be fought? I don't think so.

I am opposed to it. Now, if the legislation targeted the owners, and didn't ban 'dangerous breeds', then I'd support.

Oppose. dogs arent born aggressive and dangerous. Man has made animals that way. Its a shame, and angers me to no end.

I would support it as well, some of those breeds are far to unpredictably aggressive.

conveniently, banning would not artwork. All that happens is that the regulation-abiding voters (who frequently have not got the priority canines first of all) are harm and those with "risky" breeds label their canines as some thing else and the priority keeps, it extremely is in undemanding terms a distinctive breed or blend being indexed. additionally, once you objective particular breeds you have a tendency to enable different risky canines slide - like Labs, or small breed canines, by way of fact they are actually not banned so as that they are actually not "mean". no longer actual, yet it extremely is the message it extremely is sent. definite, some legislations needs to happen. even though it is going to likely be canines particular, no longer breed particular. And it is going to truthfully be *enforced* instead of in simple terms on the books. That on my own would remedy some issues. and that i do no longer understand approximately you, yet I particular as h3ll does no longer choose my breed of determination next up on the reducing block. you are able to say Aussies and Collies does no longer be focused, yet herding breeds have been in the past. And, in simple terms like APBTs, interior the arms of the ignorant and bred via the ignorant, they may well be considered a concern. upload: yet maximum BSL regulations do no longer in simple terms require muzzles and good fences - no person would care if that have been the case - maximum confiscate the canines and euthanize any that come into the kilos. i'm no longer announcing the breed would not choose fixing - it certainly DOES, as Greekman mentioned, yet in simple terms speaking relating to the regulations, they gained't artwork. there'll continually be canines at great, owned and bred via the irresponsible for undesirable deeds. Be they APBTs or another breed. those are the folk who won't abide via any regulation, and those are the folk who will in simple terms lie or pass on would desire to their breed be taken from them. The regulation as is will do little or no. especially in u.s., have been many stay via the chant "i'm gonna do what I rattling nicely please".

Many states already have some type of dangerous dog law, and yes I support it. I would prefer if it ended with the owner being fined or jailed for having a dangerous dog than having the dog put down (enabling the owner to just repeat the same mistakes).

It's the breed biased legislation that I can't stand.

I think there is an issue of dangerous dogs that needs to be addressed but it's currently not being dealt with properly.
I think if you want to have a dangerous dog you should have to fulfill certain requirements...for example, you shouldn't be allowed to have one if you have children under the age of say 12, you should have to prove you have at least a 6 foot high fence around your yard with privacy guards, and you should be required to take that dog to proper training courses in your area.
Now before anyone gets all upset with that here's why....1) people are stupid and will have an aggressive, untrained pit near a baby/toddler...it's just not safe 2) if you have a pool you have to have at least a 6 foot fence all around it with locking doors 3) if you adopt any kind of puppy from the humane society you are required to go to obedience classes. So it's not that unreasonable.
Currently there is a blanket ban on dangerous dogs in a lot of areas which means you can't bring one in to that area however the ones that are already there are pretty much free to behave as they please. That's what I think is the most dangerous.