Should dog owners and their dogs be registered like sex offenders?

[LoZoccolo]

I've asked this question before, but now that you've had time to think about the fact that a Rottweiler mauled a toddler to death, perhaps it's time to ask it again.

Do you think an online registry of dog owners and their dogs should be maintained to warn neighbors of the possible dangers?

[dryan]

I saw on the ....

news that in some areas the Dog Pound even puts the dog's photo on their website.

[Goldmund]

1. While you're at it, why not a registry of people with bad gas?

To warn the neighbors...

[LoZoccolo]

4. People with bad gas don't kill babies. n/t

[Goldmund]

7. People with dogs don't kill babies either, nor do their dogs

It's a one-in-a-million freak occurence.

[LoZoccolo]

9. I've been bit by a loose dog before.

I'm sure I'm not one in a million.

[seshers]

14. Big Dogs Kill

When have you ever heard of a toy poodle killing a baby. Probably never.

Rotweiler, Pit Bull, Doberman, German Shepard all possess the ABILITY to do harm or kill.

They should be licensed and owners should be prosecuted when attack occur.

Period.

[Goldmund]

18. Of course the owners should be prosecuted when attacks do happen

Just like people should be prosecuted when they beat up someone, but that doesn't mean that there should be a registry of people with fists.

[seshers]

24. Size matters, in this case

Look. The difference between the size of a fist, even from toddler to adult, is much smaller than the variance between dogs. It seems that only big dog owners are arguing for canine assisted homicide.

If your home needs protecting, sell your dog and buy a gun.

My advice: Sell your dog, buy a cat.

[Chartist]

30. "If your home needs protecting, sell your dog and buy a gun."

Yeah, because guns are SOOO much safer than dogs...

[donheld]

166. Chartist Welcome to DU

:hi:

[MadHound]

43. Hmm, let's see, which has killed more kids and people in general?

Dogs or guns? Oh yeah, that would be guns my friend.

My advice, sell your gun and get a dog, even a pitbull. Then your kids can have a great companion that won't blow a hole in them when they play with it.

[Scout]

46. I already have a gun ... the DOG is my early warning system

to either prevent me having to use the gun by scaring off the intruder (preferred!) or wake me up in the middle of the night or otherwise warn me that I might need the gun.

[Goldmund]

57. "Sell your dog, buy a cat"

:rofl:

Whatever, dude.

[ernstbass]

159. I'll keep my BIG dogs, thank you

[friesianrider]

184. "Sell your dog"

:eyes: It's this attitude that contributes to this problem.

[progressivebydesign]

80. So if your child attacks someone should YOU go to jail???

ONLY if there was proven knowledge of the dog's viciousness, AND negligence or intent on the owner's part.

[HuckleB]

191. If the dog has access to a child and the owner isn't in control...

of the dog, allowing the dog to kill said child, then that owner is negligent, pure and simple.

This is a dog we're talking about, not a child. There is no comparison.

[Coventina]

37. Actually, toy breeds have been known to kill infants.

Just FYI

[seshers]

39. Yea, "toy babies" n/t

[Coventina]

47. Here's a CNN link if you don't believe me

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/09/pomeranian.kills.ap/

[CornField]

48. Real babies -- infants

A Pomeranian was left on the bed with an infant while the parent went to fix a bottle. While the parent was gone, the Pom mauled the infant to death.

Although my dog is a smaller breed (cocker/sheltie mix) and young (7 months now), I have no doubt that she could kill a child/toddler/infant if she wanted to. Matter of fact, most dogs are capable. Since I realize this our dog is never left unattended with children -- even our own children.

As a sidenote, some of the most nasty dog bites I've ever seen came at the hands of the so-called toy breeds.

[barb162]

53. What about that woman killed in San Francisco a few years ago

by her neighbors' dog. There are thousands of people getting severe bites every year from dogs.

[Goldmund]

64. What about her?

[barb162]

70. she's really dead, that's what n/t

[Goldmund]

106. And?

Go to darwinawards.com and you'll find all sorts of things to "register".

[davidinalameda]

211. the woman was mauled by two dogs that were trained as fighters

and were kept in a small apartment

the dogs had no business being in the apartment building; the people who kept them were keeping them for a convicted murderer

they attacked her with no provocation

this was not a case for the Darwin Awards

[barb162]

78. see post 76 for stats indicating about 15-20 deaths a year

[Goldmund]

105. That's a lot less deaths than from fists.

[friesianrider]

202. What about fighting, what about guns? What about swimming pools?

More people die in swimming pool accidents every year than die from dog bites. Should we ban swimming pools?

Should we ban GUNS? :hide:

Come on, this backwards logic of "banning" things to make them go away are just so silly.

[LoZoccolo]

66. I wonder if dogs bite more people than sex offenders re-offend.

I heard that 10% of sex offenders re-offend; I would imagine the percentage of dogs who bite people is probably more than that. That statistic would make the registry argument more compelling, but I haven't been able to find it, even on a website I found that an attourney who specializes in dog bite cases put up.

[barb162]

72. Aggressive Dogs Threaten Public Safety

"Aggressive Dogs Threaten Public Safety
Canadian Data Lacking / Responsible Ownership / Municipal Animal Control / Dangerous Breeds
The phrase "dog bite epidemic" appears on several US-based Web sites. Statistics show dog bites are on the rise in that country. Although the number of dogs in the United States increased by only 2 percent between 1986 and 1996, the number of dog bite injuries requiring medical treatment rose by 33 percent.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.7 million Americans - almost two per cent of the population - were bitten by dogs in 1994. One out of six required medical treatment. The American Humane Association calls dog bites a greater health problem for children in the US, than measles, mumps, and whooping cough combined, and points to data showing almost 70 percent of dog-bite victims are children under 15 years of age.

The Insurance Information Institute reported that claims related to dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowner’s liability claims in the US, with an average claim of $16,600. The fact that over half of the bites occur on the dog owner’s property has prompted some American insurers to take steps to limit their losses."

http://www.safety-council.org/info/child/dogs.html
---------------------------------------------
Well, I think the fourth paragraph says it all, 1/4 if all US homeowner liability claims are on dog bites.

[barb162]

77. see post 76 for stats

[me b zola]

174. "I've heard that 10% of sex offenders re-offend"

:wtf: Sexual "offenders" are PREDATORS. Most have hundreds of victims in their lifetime. Treatment almost never works.


I support a registry for people who would compare pet ownership to pedophilia. :grr:

[LoZoccolo]

196. I read it in /Time/ magazine...

...and I remember the study being backed by some reputable entity, like the APA or something. I don't want to look for it now since I'm at work, but I may be able to find it later.

My point wasn't that sex offenders shouldn't be registered, anyways, it was that dog owners should.

[oldcoot]

140. A registry would not have prevented that attack

The victim knew who owned the dog. I seem to remember that the idiot neighbor even taunted her for being afraid of the dog. I believe that the neighbor was convicted and sentenced to prison for not preventing the attack. Fortunately, most dog owners are not like that.

Yes, thousands of people get severe dog bites every year. However, thousands of people actually die in automobile accidents every year. Yet car accidents rarely get the attention or provoke the outrage of dog attacks.

[Modem Butterfly]

107. The hell they don't!

[htuttle]

2. Most cities already require the licensing of dogs

And the dog license 'registers' the owner at the same time.

[LoZoccolo]

8. This would be a searchable registry with pictures for identification.

If the dog is loose and bites someone, the fact that the dog is registered with the city under the current system will do nothing to identify who is responsible.

[oldcoot]

103. Many dogs look alike, especially pure breed dogs

It might be difficult for the victim to identify the correct dog if every dog owner is required to register in his or her area because many dogs look alike. Pure breed dogs especially look alike because they are bred to conform to AKA standards. For example, how many black-and-tan German Shepherds have you seen? If you look closely enough, you will probably see different markings on individual dogs but I suspect that the victim of a dog attack probably is not interested in the dog's markings.

One solution might be to narrow this list of possible suspects by requiring those individuals who have been cited for allowing their dogs to run loose to register their dogs. If they fail to do so, Animal Control could take their dogs.

Another solution is to simply enforce existing laws. One thing that I have noticed with recent dog attacks in my city, is that the dogs usually have a history of causing trouble. In one case, an elderly woman had to defend her little dog against a pitbull. Fortunately, the woman was able to fight off the pitbull with help from some of her neighbors and save her dog. The neighbors had been complaining to Animal Control about the pitbull running loose for a long time. Apparently, Animal Control had ignored their complaints until this incident occurred. If Animal Control had the enforced existing laws, this woman's dog would not have been attacked.

In this case the pitbull's owner finally decided to put his dog to sleep. However, I do not think that the pitbull's owner should get off this easily. It is not fair that the dog has to die while the idiot owner gets a slap on the wrist. Instead, I would favor jail or prison sentences for those individuals who repeatedly allow their dogs to run free if their dogs bites another person or animal.

Unfortunately, enforcing existing laws will not eliminate all attacks. For example, the toddler in California was killed by her grandparents' dog. Even though that dog might have attacked another dog in the past, the victim's owner did not document the attack. However, enforcing existing laws will still reduce the number of dog attacks.

[dhinojosa]

3. It should be, but there is no stigma for having a mean dog....

so it won't do much in my opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. No, but certain dogs are dangerous breeds and it should

be illegal to own and breed them

[MadHound]

17. You still don't get it, it isn't the breed, it is the owner

Who trains the dog.

Did you realize that up until fifty years ago, pit-bulls were considered great dogs for families WITH KIDS?

And then immasculated would be tough guys started training these dogs to be mean, and the rep grew that all pits are mean, which just isn't so.

Same with Rotts, German Shepards, and other large breeds. Used to be that German Shepards were the bad dog du-jour, now it is pits and Rotts, next decade it will probably be collies or some such.

It isn't the breed of the dog, it is how it is raised.

[TX-RAT]

52. You got part of it right

(It isn't the breed of the dog,)

It's the size of the dog.
I'm for any city ordinance that restricts anything over 25 pounds.I'm for people with large dogs being required to have specific fencing or pens.I'm completely against any chaining or tethering of any dog.

(Did you realize that up until fifty years ago, pit-bulls were considered great dogs for families WITH KIDS?)

Did you realize dog fighting was a popular sport in the late 1800's and still is.
Did you realize that the Romans used them for fighting the Brits for baiting and Ratting.

[MadHound]

68. Geez, I've never seen so many people

With such an irrational fear of dogs, large and small.

Yes, I realize that dogs were used for various types of amusement. Of course the breeds that were used weren't restricted to pits, rotts or any other breeds. Terrier, small, lovable terriers were the most popular ratters around. In addition, many, if not most of these dogs were actually mixed breeds.

Oh, and it isn't the size of dog that determines the aggression. Actually cockers are the worst at biting, followed by toy poodles, and if I remember correctly, dachsunds.

Stop projecting your own fears, and the rare but super hyped media garbage onto my animals. For there is no dog that I raise that is of any danger to anybody, unless you are breaking into my house, or attacking my family, then all bets are off.

[shanti]

144. good god, man!

for many of us, it's NOT an "irrational fear" of dogs! we have had BAD EXPERIENCES (i.e., bites) from them!! there's nothing irrational about that! quit downplaying our real fear! :grr:

both me AND one of my sons were bitten as children.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mutley]

156. I was bitten as well, by a Rottweiller.

I was afraid of them for the longest time. But I've recently made friends with the biggest rottie I've ever seen (nearly 200lbs) and he is a very sweet loving dog. He lays on the grass and allows my puppy to roll all over him and bite his ears without even giving her an annoyed look. I don't believe it is breeds, but how they are treated.

[donheld]

169. Boo fucking hoo too

Dogs are wonderful! All breeds.

[TX-RAT]

150. I have no fear of dogs, it's the owners i have a problem with.

I have one inside dog and 2 outside, both in large pens. I've raised and trained Pointers and Brittany's most of my life. I also spent 22 yrs with the Sheriffs Department. I've investigated more than my share of dog bites,and attacks, 3 of those resulted in the death of a small child. Most if not all claimed their dog had never done this before, or it was scared, or it was provoked, or it's just the sweetest thing that wouldn't harm a fly. Don't matter, people were killed and injured. Their worse than guns. We know guns go off when you pull the trigger. Sometimes dogs go off for reasons unknown.

As for Cocker's, poodles and dachshunds, most people, except the smallest of children can defend themselves against dogs that size. To compare being bitten by a small poodle or cocker or dachshund to being mauled or killed by a 70 or 120lb dog is pretty lame. I'm really disappointed you didn't bring up the Pomeranian story, for a defense.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TX-RAT]

203. myths and BS?

I did the investigations, i did the interviews, i collected the evidence, i turned it in to the DA. No myths here


(Dogs don't go off for reasons unknown unless they are ill or hurt)
Maybe a small child get to close to their food?
As in one of the cases here, the child got inside it's chain boundary.
Kids chasing a ball over the fence.
Dog gets lose and attacks neighbors pets.
Dog gets lose and attacks neighbors.
When you have large dogs, you have a large liability, and if you think it will never happen to you, then you are the one living in a MYTH

(You may not know what the reason is, and the owner, especially if they're fools like you're describing ones you're describing, may not know,)

Thank you.
Not only do you admit they can go off, then you admit they may go off for reasons your unaware of.

[RebelOne]

75. I totally agree with you.

I have a Rottie and I have owned a pit bull. My Rottie is the sweetest, nicest and most obedient dog you could ever ask for. And the same goes for the pit bull, who is not long dead. It's all in how you train them. I am never abusive and treat all my pets like children.

[ArkDem]

82. How did the Pit Bull get it's name?

[MadHound]

94. By being used to bait bulls in a pit enclosure originally

Interestingly enough, back in those days, 16th century and up, if the dog exhibited any aggression towards humans, it was killed in order to cull such violence from the bloodline.

Throughout the days of our founding fathers, right on up to the 1950s, pit bulls were praised as wonderful family pets, especially with children. And you know what, they still are if you don't train the dog to be a vicious killer. Of course that is true with any dog, big or small.

It isn't in what sort of dog you have, it is how you train and raise the dog.

[slackmaster]

198. Pit bulls were bred to maim and kill as many people as possible

As quickly as possible.

There is no legitimate sporting purpose for pit bulls, and no legitimate reason to own one.

(Don't worry MadHound, this IS sarcasm.)

[Coventina]

26. That makes me sad, nsma

As I was posting on the thread about the toddler and the Rottweiler, I've spent much of this summer researching dogs for my master's thesis.

It's an issue far too complicated to be solved by breed banning.

Should vicious dogs be destroyed? Certainly.

I also think that bad owners who abuse, neglect and even *shudder* train their animals to be vicious should have harsher penalties laid on them.

But dogs are very complicated animals, as are humans actually. And there are almost endless varieties, since dogs interbreed all the time.

How do you determine that a specific breed is vicious? Frequency of bites? Then Cocker Spaniels would top the list! Even toy breeds have been known to kill infants.

And how do you enforce a ban? Do you kill dogs that have never committed a crime? What about half breeds? Dogs of uncertain ancestery?

Our relationship with dogs is the oldest one we have. We owe more to them than knee-jerk reactions that will not solve the problems of bad ownership.

[LoZoccolo]

34. "Even toy breeds have been known to kill infants."

That's why we should register every last one of them.

[Seabiscuit]

6. I'd sure like to know where the rotts, pits, etc. reside in my

neighborhood. I don't want my toddler anywhere near them.

[MadHound]

10. Not just no, but hell no

Geez louise! First of all we dog owners are under increasing pressure as is, we don't need this type of shit on top of it. Secondly, I don't want just anybody to know what kind of dog I have. Part of the reason I have dogs is for security, same reason as many others in this country. If it is public knowledge that I have a small dog rather than a large dog, then it is more likely that I would get broken into. Leave some element of mystery out there, and my house is much safer. Third, this is a huge slipper slope we're looking at. Registration, jacked up insurance rates, banning of certain breeds, then banning of all breeds. Sorry, but I would rather not go there just because of the actions of a very few assholes.

[LoZoccolo]

Don't get a dog if you can't handle the pressure.

There is not one reason why you need a dangerous animal in a residential district.

Plus, you're whole idea that you'd like to create the impression that you have a big dog when you really have a small dog makes my argument for me that some dogs are dangerous.

Jacked up insurance rates? It's called taking responsibility for your choices.

[MadHound]

23. First of all you're assuming that any dog I have is dangerous

And yes, I have both big and small dogs. Having a big dog that barks doesn't mean that such a dog is dangerous, however it does scare away people who are trying to break in, for they think big dogs are dangerous.

And I'm sorry, but jacked up insurance rates means penalizing people for no good reason. Shall we jack up the rates for people who have guns in their homes? Knives? Matches? Give me a fucking break. People get all hysterical running around screaming about dangerous dogs, yet refuse to realize that these are very isolated instances.

[LoZoccolo]

40. See #34.

There really isn't much of a reason to split hairs about breeds, size, etcetera.

Jacked up insurance rates means you pay for being in the risk pool you have voluntarily placed yourself in.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

50. That's illogical.

That's a bad argument.

[MadHound]

55. No it isn't

Both guns and dogs kill. Then if we're going to charge a higher insurance rate to people who have potentially lethal possesions, then we can't jack up insurance rates for one without doing it for both. Where is the illogic in that. And since it is much more likely for a gun owner to be killed or kill somebody with their gun, then the gun owners should be charged at a higher rate than the dog owners.

Sorry that you can't find a reply for my arguement, but your lack of an arguement doesn't mean that mine is illogical. It simply means that you need to use your head better.

[LoZoccolo]

58. You're saying because we don't do one we shouldn't do the other.

That doesn't make any sense. Maybe we should do both.

[MadHound]

71. No, I'm saying that one of those proposition is as ludicrous

As the other. Got that, see the logic?

What I'm saying is that life in general present many dangers to all people, and we can't nanny state or insure our way to complete and total safety, and that it is ludicrous to even try.

Humans have lived with dogs for thousands of years with little complaint. Don't let these very rare, but highly sensationalized stories stir your fear to the point of imposing ridiculous conditions on the vast, vast majority of citizens who are responsible dog owners. First it is dogsk, then guns, what's next, cats?(and yes, you can actually train cats to be attack animals).

[LoZoccolo]

111. As barb162 pointed out...

...a quarter of homeowner's liability claims are for dog bites.

http://www.safety-council.org/info/child/dogs.html

I think I should be asking you why the rest of us are paying for what dogs do, when it's optional that people have them.

[MadHound]

139. Then you must also be in favor of regulating where people live also

Since we're all paying higher insurance rates due to people repeatedly getting hit by hurricanes in Florida and other Gulf regions. Thus, by your logic we should move everybody out of hurricane/tornadoe/earthquake/flood prone areas, right.

Look friend, insurance rates are a way of spreading risk out over large populations. Everybody, every single person has, will or is engaging in some sort of risky behaviour. That doesn't mean that we should prevent them from doing such, but that is exactly why we spread the risk out.

Oh, and how many instances do dogs discourage a burglar from breaking in and ripping off stuff? That right there saves us money in insurance claims now doesn't it? Sadly, there are any stats kept on that, since most of that goes unnoticed.

[LoZoccolo]

141. I never said I'd regulate what people can and can't do.

However, certain choices have certain responsibilities attached to them. And yes, there are already higher insurance prices for people who make a voluntary choice to be in the riskier part of the pool.

[MadHound]

153. No, not you

You just want to create a national registry of dogs and owners, and jack up dog owners' insurance rate. But no, you never said that you would regulate what people can and can't do:eyes: Give me a fucking break friend, and read your own posts again before you make such BS claims.

[AngryAmish]

133. Insurance companies can raise rates for gun owners

If there is a high rate of losses tied to gun ownership.

Insurance companies can and do raise rates if you have dogs. Dogs create claims. Period.

In Chicago it is getting harder and harder to get homeowners insurance if you have a dog, especially certain breeds. Dog bite cases are easy to win and can create huge damages. Usually multiple plastic surgeries, facial scars, ptsd etc.

Ever seen a jury pool when the question is asked if they could not fairly judge a case if a pit bull is involved? In my area about half the people raise their hands because they have had bad experiences with the breed. Plus, not to insult you, the owners tend to not make the best witnesses and juries want to punish them.

Hey, you want to own a large dog of certain breeds it is within your rights for now. However, you are making a lot of plaintiff's lawyers a lot of money and you may find yourself sued into bankruptcy even if you dog was provoked.

(Provocation defenses when raised in court tend to blow up in the face of the defense. "Blame the victim blah blah blah..." It tends to piss the jury off because they know certain breeds are viscous.)

[MadHound]

145. Well, I'm not making money for anybody

My insurance does not penalize me for my dogs. And since I've trained and raised my dogs properly, they are absolutely no danger to anybody unless you are breaking into my house or attacking my family or myself. Then you've got a couple of big problems on your hands. But gee, somehow I don't think that a jury would find fault with that.

Please don't generalize about people or pets. It is how we find ourselves in this mess to begin with.

[AngryAmish]

151. I am sure you are not

And it was wrong of me to automatically applying the generalization to you.

Some of these owners are irresponsible. Some of these dogs are just plain mean (just like some people). People, especially kids, tease dogs too much. These all combine into a lot of vacation homes and trips to Brazilian steakhouses.

I think it is pretty risky to own the breed but that risk can be mitigated by high fences and keeping the breed away from all children, which I am sure as a reasonsible owner you do.

[MadHound]

154. And you can insure that there is virtually no risk from any breed of dog

By raising and training the dog properly.

Punish the bad dog owners, not the responsible ones, or entire breeds. Generalization is not good, either for humans or animals.

[oldcoot]

152. A properly trained dog is not a danger to you

However, the dog may very well be dangerous to a burglar because the dog see the burglar as a threat to his or her family.

[TX-RAT]

20. the reason I have dogs is for security, same reason as many others

The day i see as many story's about dogs deterring crime as i do dogs killing and injuring innocent people, i'll buy that reason.

[Scout]

22. if someone doesn't break into my house because they hear my

dog barking, how will I know a crime has been prevented, hmmm??

[MadHound]

28. Exactly, thanks!

I used to live in a very high crime area. All of my neighbors, without dogs, were broken into and ripped off. However my sweet loving, big barking Rott mix discouraged anybody from breaking in. And no, such things don't make the paper.

[RebelOne]

134. Well, I am proof of that reason.

I have a Rottweiler. The neighbor across the street and my next door neighbor's homes have been broken into. And I feel confident that I won't be robbed because my dog is a big deterrent to anyone thinking about breaking into my house.

[oldcoot]

168. My German Shepherd stopped at least 2 crimes

When I was a kid, we had a female German Shepherd. She was not a mean animal and did not bite people but she was a large dog. She also prevented at least 2 crimes. In the first case, our neighbors were on vacation. In the middle of the night, my German Shepherd starting barking. My father called the police because she was not normally a barker. The police came and found that the neighbor's back door was open. It is unlikely that someone on vacation would leave his or her back door open. It is likely that the dog scared off a possible burglar.

The second time, she prevented a group of young men from doing damage to the house my parents were renting. They had vandalized some of the other houses in the neighborhood and tried to get into our backyard. They discovered our dog after she barked at them and ran away.

Neither case would have made the front page of any newspaper so you would not have read about it. I think that the reason you hear so much about dogs killing and seriously injuring innocent people is because of the sensational nature of these cases. It does not mean that most dogs are dangerous to humans.

[slackmaster]

190. Substitute "gun" for "dog" - this thread would go straight to the Gungeon

Geez louise! First of all we gun owners are under increasing pressure as is, we don't need this type of shit on top of it. Secondly, I don't want just anybody to know what kind of gun I have. Part of the reason I have guns is for security, same reason as many others in this country. If it is public knowledge that I have a small gun rather than a large gun, then it is more likely that I would get broken into. Leave some element of mystery out there, and my house is much safer. Third, this is a huge slipper slope we're looking at. Registration, jacked up insurance rates, banning of certain types, then banning of all types. Sorry, but I would rather not go there just because of the actions of a very few assholes.

:evilgrin:

[doodadem]

11. That's ridiculous.

Why not have an online registry of parents who are stupid enough to leave their kid alone with a Rottweiler?

[MadHound]

51. Better idea yet,

Let's provide classes for people who are too clueless to train their dogs properly, and keep people who want to take any dog and turn them into a vicious killing machine.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. No, maybe like cars & drivers.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. I Think We Have To In Illinois

I don't know how strictly it's enforced, and it's done so at the county level, but we have to renew the license yearly, with vet's sig to prove vaccinations and that we still are the owners.

I don't know, though, if that's as strict a proposal as your suggesting.
The Professor

[Kraklen]

15. reminds me of Idaho's attempts to register homosexuals.

Or was that montana?

[SmokingJacket]

16. Hmmm.... then I could track down the sources of poo in my yard, too. nt

[ulysses]

19. never imagined you as a nanny-statist, Zoccalo.

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

32. Why do you say this?

What are you talking about?

[ulysses]

38. I just hadn't thought of you as a "big government" kind of guy.

That's all.

[LoZoccolo]

42. Why not?

Did you just pick me at random to say that about?

[ulysses]

45. no - why on earth would I do that?

[ulysses]

21. how about a license to own a dog?

Same for people who want to get pregnant.

[smbolisnch]

25. HELL NO.

Can't say that emphatically enough.

[Cleita]

27. I think it should be illegal for the general public to own certain

breeds like Pit Bulls without a license and purpose for owning such a dog.

I do believe in licensing gun owners as well. You have to have a driver's license to drive a car. Why can't owning a dangerous breed of dog or gun be the same?

[seshers]

Yes. I agree. Very well said. n/t

[Pithlet]

29. Such a thing wouldn't stop people from being irresponsible.

And might just instill false security for everyone else.

If people would just keep their damn dogs on a leash and properly fenced in when not out on a leash, and realize that sweet harmless poochie has the potential to be deadly particularly if they're a large strong breed, things would be fine.

[seshers]

31. BIG DOGS KILL. BIG CATS KILL. BIG GUNS KILL n/t

[slackmaster]

201. meow

[MazeRat7]

33. Maybe "AFTER" they are convicted of being a threat....

So unless you want to register all people BEFORE a few commit sex crimes, I would rethink your OP of wanting to register all DOGS/OWNERS before a few have committed assault.

MZr7

[ulysses]

35. hey, I know!

Register everyone who owns an SUV or even a full-size sedan and install a tracking device in the vehicle, so that folks who drive more economic cars and don't want to get into a headlong with an Escalade can keep track of them and steer clear. :think:

[napi21]

36. I said YES, and I volunteer to foster dogs all the time!

There are already laws in some areas that require you to comply with specific restraints after your dog has attacked aany human. Information on you and your dog is retained locally because if there is a second offense, the dog will be destroyed.

I don't see any reason this information shouldn't be available on-line. You may argue that the owner didn't attack anyone, but each owner is RESPONSIBLE for the actions of their dogs!

I am responsible for the actions of all the dogs I take into foster care too! (Although, I only foster one breed, and they are all cute little white fluffballs, so I never have a problem.)

[Rapcw]

41. They already register dogs in Japan IIRC n/t

[porphyrian]

44. Absolutely.

Then, we should have an online registry for all automobile owners, as they are proven to cause significant accidental fatalities. Oh, and steak knife owners, lots of violent acts caused by steak knives. All knives, really. And don't forget all people with contagious diseases - even the common cold can be deadly to senior citizens and small children - we definitely need an online registry for all of those dangerous people.

[ulysses]

54. *I* think black families should be registered.

You never know when one of those black kids is going to turn on you. They're dangerous!

[Coventina]

56. Nah, I think it's GERMANS who should be registered

After all, they started two world wars!!

And how about that holocaust!

I think that pretty much proves Germans are a dangerous breed.

[ulysses]

60. inter the Japs!

There's even a history! God knows, they're probably planning another Pearl Harbor even as we speak!

[smbolisnch]

61. And gays. Don't forget those gays.

They might try and convert someone, or god forbid spread their homasekchul agendas. :eyes:

[ulysses]

62. I heard that Dahmer guy was gay.

Dear god! They're all cannibals! To the camps!

[smbolisnch]

65. munch munch munch munch......

ETA: :rofl:

[ulysses]

69. LOLOL!

Snack time? :D

[countingbluecars]

59. I say yes.

To me its like having a pool. Because kids can drown in pools, there were many codes I had to meet when building a pool. A six foot fence was required. I had to put locks or alarms on any doors leading outside. I don't have kids, but a pool could be a danger to others in the neighborhood. I don't see any big deal in registering dogs that might pose a threat.

[ernstbass]

164. Better yet

why don't we have codes for dog owners - for starters, outlaw chains and require pens to be of a certain size. Tethering dogs and not socializing them is a large part of the problem and communtities that have taken these steps have had dog attacks decrease considerably.

[beyurslf]

63. Maybe we should register every type of objectionable behavior

that way we can all have neighbors we like.

[TXlib]

67. What an asinine idea.

Let's register ALL men while we're at it. They all have penises and could be rapists.

Let's register anybody with steak knives... could be dangerous, you know...

[mongo]

95. Don't give anyone any ideas

They might just take you up on it.

[RebelOne]

73. Since I'm a Rottweiler owner, I have to vote no on this question.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coventina]

88. I especially like the "like sex offenders" touch

:eyes:

[barb162]

76. Dog Bite Statistics

"Dog Bite Statistics
There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually -- about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Between 15 and 20 die per year. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with $345 million paid by insurance.

The problem appears to be growing. In a 7-year period during the 1990's, the number of dogs rose by 2% while the number of bites increased by 33%. The property/casualty insurance industry paid $250 million for dog bite claims in 1995, $310 million in 2001, and $345.5 million in 2002. Additional losses were paid by other segments of the insurance industry, such as health insurers.

The dog bite epidemic: a primer
Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them
The dogs most likely to kill
Children are the most frequent victims
The face is the most frequent target

This is a section of the web site Dog Bite Law (www.dogbitelaw.com) -- the most comprehensive educational web site for dog bite victims, dog owners, parents, journalists and others interested in the dog bite epidemic.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

[ulysses]

79. yes, so let's create a great big database

listing everyone in the country that owns a dog. Let's include their addresses. Then let's make it public.

Superb idea.

[barb162]

81. Now who is suggesting that? I am not the OP and even the OP

isn't suggesting it. Does reading stats bother you?

[ulysses]

83. of course the OP is suggesting that.

How else are you going to create an online registry?

No, reading stats doesn't bother me. Does the right to privacy for those who have committed no crime bother you?

[barb162]

90. Perhaps you ought to ask the OP if he/she is in fact making the

suggestion

[ulysses]

92. ok, gimme a sec.

[BattyDem]

97. From the original post:

"Do you think an online registry of dog owners and their dogs should be maintained to warn neighbors of the possible dangers?"

[ulysses]

117. his reply is below. n/t

[barb162]

177. check post 176

[ulysses]

179. ok, I did.

I'm still not sure why you're supporting the idea of a national database of dog owners. Make no mistake, that's what you're doing.

[Pithlet]

87. I think it's dumb, too.

I would support local agencies keeping a list of owners who's dogs have caused harm, but that's as far as I'd take an idea like that. For one thing, a list of ALL dog owners would be just too ungainly. I don't understand what purpose it would serve, either. Anyone who lives in a community should be aware there are dog owners. Every neighborhood has them.

[ulysses]

96. want to know if there are dogs loose in the neighborhood?

Slam the car door and listen. :)

[Pithlet]

104. Exactly :)

The next door neighbor's dog (kept outdoors) always wakes me up with his morning ritual of admonishing the neighborhood's workforce as it leaves for the day and the resultant auto-related cacophony.

[barb162]

98. my city does this, registering both dogs and cats annually

and a person has to have the rabies info up to date when the registration is submitted. There is a fine if animal control finds your animal and you never registered it with city hall. Of course the city takes a fee for the registration so it is a moneymaker for the municipality. I don't know if most municipalities do this

[ulysses]

99. sure - I suspect most, if not all, municipal entities do.

That's not what's being suggested.

[Pithlet]

109. I'm sure that's quite common

I don't know if this is what the OP was talking about though. I get the feeling it was a rather tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a national registry so people could look up who has a dog and who doesn't. There's a flame war going on now in a rotweiller-mauled-a-kid thread.

Apropos of nothing you posted; I think it's funny the spellchecker keeps insisting on changing rotweiller to rototiller.

[slackmaster]

208. San Diego and most cities in California register dogs, not cats

I haven't heard of one that requires cat registration.

[MadHound]

89. So you are wanting to regulate dogs,

Then we should also regualte guns in the same way. After all, while only 15-20 people per year die due to dogs, aprox. 30,000 people a year die due to guns. Yet there is no federal data base as proposed in this thread, insurance rates aren't higher for gun owners, but people in this thread are wanting to jack up dogowners' rates.

Take care of the fucking guns first friend, then we can get to the piddly shit like dogs.

[BattyDem]

91. Excellent point!

:toast:

[barb162]

100. does it bother you that I showed a web site

which included data? The data is neutral just like data on gun injuries and death.

[MadHound]

136. No, data and sources are always a good thing

I simply think that getting upset about such a relatively minor problems, when we've got much bigger fish to fry is completely ludicrous. When we start having dog death stats reach the levels of death dealt out of the barrel of a gun, then I'll get concerned. Until then, I think we should deal with more pressing matters.

[barb162]

176. You know what I think?

I wanted to make sure this thread pretty much settled itself out before I put my two cents in.

If there is a dog owner with a history of dogs biting, that tells me something; that the person is an idiot or is torturing the dogs or training them to fight, etc. I think those people should be in a registry if it happens 2 or more times. Once is an accident maybe. Twice starts perhaps suggesting a pattern. There's always a kid that will taunt a dog knowingly or unknowingly. I don't blame the dog for protecting itself. When they bite postal employees or run after and bite people on the sidewalks, that's another story. Also if a dog is trained to protect or a guard dog and the owner doesn't fence it or is otherwise negligent in letting it outside a fenced area, then they should be nailed. Most people raise their dogs to be affectionate I think. Then there's other people who for various reasons don't restrain their dogs when they know the dog has a biting problem....

[slackmaster]

204. There's a good reason insurance rates aren't higher for gun owners

Most of us pose zero added risk to ourselves or others, and insurance policies won't pay out for damage caused by criminal acts.

(Insurance companies also don't pay out for suicides, which BTW account for more than half of those firearm-related deaths.)

[sandnsea]

186. 5 - 9 year old boys

"The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate."

Hmmm, maybe the problem isn't a rise in unruly dogs, but a rise in unruly children. Maybe what we really need is a database of bratty boys.

[Mr.Green93]

84. Gerbil owners

Can't be too careful.

[ulysses]

86. !

:spray:

[barb162]

102. and white mice with little pink noses

[BattyDem]

85. My state already requires dog licenses ..

and in order to get one, I must show proof that he has had all his shots.

But ... an online registry with photos is ridiculous! First of all, there is no way you can tell apart two dogs of the same breed simply by looking at a photo ... so that means it will be the owner's photos that will matter. Why should I be registered for a "crime" that has not been committed by me or my dog? To warn neighbors of the possible dangers? Puh-leeze! If we follow that logic, than every person who owns a gun, car, hunting knife, or even prescription drugs should have to register with an online database.

The guy down the block, who loves to speed in his new sports car, may not see the little boy who runs out into the street after a ball. The alcoholic across the street could get violent or horny after having one beer too many, so you better keep the children inside. The gun-collector neighbor may just "snap" one day and use your kids for target practice. Who knows?

The point is, you can't start treating people like criminals if they haven't done anything wrong! We always read about the bad things that happen with dogs, but how many crimes have been deterred because of them? We'll never know.

Ok ... one dog commits a crime, so let's register all dogs and owners and the neighborhood will be aware of the "possible" threat. But ... if one Hispanic person commits a crime, do we register all Hispanic people or just the members of that person's immediate family? Perhaps we should register EVERYONE by tattooing identification numbers on their arms and putting their numbers and photos on the Internet so we can all be aware of the "possible" dangers that every other person in the country may pose. :eyes:

Sex offenders are registered because they are PREDATORS! They actively seek out people in order to harm them. But to have an online, photo registry of ordinary people because they own an animal that may POSSIBLY be a threat, even though neither the person nor the animal has any violent behavior in their past, is a frightening thought! And I guarantee that the crime rate will go up because potential thieves will be prepared for the big dog BEFORE they try to break into the home.

[ulysses]

93. LoZoccalo, a question:

Are you suggesting that an online registry of dog owners and their dogs should be maintained?

barb162 wanted me to ask.

[LoZoccolo]

112. I voted "yes". n/t

[ulysses]

116. thanks. n/t

[smbolisnch]

101. Looks like the majority of DUers have enough sense to vote NO

on this ridiulous poll.

[Goldmund]

108. I actually can't even believe that so many people voted "yes"...

[smbolisnch]

110. I can't either.

The rampant animal hate at DU never ceases to amaze me.
Can you imagine if we were talking about 12 year old kids with violent pasts? Should their parents have to register? Wow...look out.

[Goldmund]

115. The general finger-pointing and intolerance never ceases to amaze me.

One day it's smokers who should all just shut up and die, the next day it's dog owners who should all pay dues to Big Bro, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Liberals?

[smbolisnch]

118. I know it. We all get riled up over ertain things, granted.

For me, it's animal rights. For others, it's kids in public. The list goes on and on. We are all entitled to our opinions. Still, this sort of thing is just plain fascist, big brother bullshit, IMO.

[countingbluecars]

119. Well, I voted yes

and I consider myself a sensible person. And guess what-I love animals especially dogs. My yes was mainly in response to the posts from people who refuse to admit that certain breeds are dangerous. I am also becoming quite aware that some people who defend attack dogs also like to attack (people who have opinions different from their own).

[smbolisnch]

121. I am not attacking, but if you can show me where I did, I'll apologize.

Won't happen, though.
Voting yes in this poll does not make you a sensible person, IMO. Sorry.

[countingbluecars]

124. There you go again.

Ruff

[smbolisnch]

126. Okay.

Can't answer your own accusation, then don't post. That's pretty simple logic. :shrug:

[sniffa]

129. you just caLLed him a non sensibLe person

and then right here you taLked down to him.

[friesianrider]

172. Saying someone is non-sensible is not talking down to them.

:shrug:

[countingbluecars]

131. Here you are attacking again.

I have a different opinion so you tell me not to post. But as an example, you implied that those who voted yes were animal haters. You said animal hatred is rampant on DU, no?

[smbolisnch]

132. No, what I said was if you can't answer your own accusations, don't post.

That's very different. And you still haven't answered it.

[friesianrider]

173. Hey, counting blue cars...

:nopity:

Want some cheese with that whine?

[countingbluecars]

180. Hey friesianrider

Actually, it was the animal-hater comment I was whining about. No thank on the cheese.

[friesianrider]

182. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

Your conclusions are a touch paranoid. She didn't say anyone who voted yes was an animal hater, she wasn't attacking you, and she wasn't telling you not to post. Methinks you may be a tad paranoid - perhaps you should consider a short break from this thread. :shrug:

[countingbluecars]

187. Perhaps now you are telling me not to post?

Is it because I might have a different opinion than you? If truth be told, I think your post #178 makes more sense than most of the pro pitbull and rotweiler defenses I have read on DU. The issues of breeding, spaying and neutering make good sense to me. However, I think that some people are too cavalier in their defense of these breeds. Oh, and by the way, I did interpret her responses as telling me not to post. Reading comprehension is an interesting thing.

[friesianrider]

194. Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

:eyes:

I appreciate your support for my previous post, but honestly I just don't understand how you reached the conclusions you did that she was attacking you and telling you not to post.

The poster you are arguing with said: "Can't answer your own accusation, then don't post."

You said: "Here you are attacking again. I have a different opinion so you tell me not to post. But as an example, you implied that those who voted yes were animal haters."

I believe she said that IF you cannot answer your own accusation (which so far you have not), then don't post. She didn't say "you idiot, you don't think the same I do so just stop posting!" She made a rational demand in a reasonably polite way. :shrug: You also accused her of attacking you in that post, which she clearly did not.

Again, with all due respect, I think you just don't really have any argument here and are being a tad paranoid.

[countingbluecars]

197. No inferring allowed?

Is that a rule? Come on, read the discussion.

[friesianrider]

200. Of course.

But you accused the poster of attacking you, which she did not. You also accused her of "telling" you not to post - also, which she did not. I've read the discussion thoroughly, which is why I even copied and pasted the conversation to refresh your memory.

I'm just noting that you're not making any logical sense here, and are coming off sounding extremely paranoid. :shrug:

[countingbluecars]

206. And you accuse me of "not making any

logical sense". Perhaps we could agree that we both read the same posts but see them differently, and that it is time to end this discussion.

[friesianrider]

209. Sure.

Except that I'm right in my accusations and you're wrong in your accusations, but whatevs.

[ulysses]

123. "certain breeds are dangerous" is simplistic.

Know which breed had the bad rep a couple of generations ago?

St. Bernards.

Any dog will bite if provoked. Any dog that is big/strong enough to cause serious damage can be scapegoated for the actions of a few stupid owners.

It's. Not. The. Breed.

[countingbluecars]

128. I believe

it is the breed. In the latest case the dog ripped the child out of the mother's arms.

[smbolisnch]

130. Oh for fuck's sake.

An African American man was shot in my town last week, by another African American man. Surely you don't think that makes all African American men murderers. Think about what you are saying.

[ulysses]

135. a golden retriever could do that.

So could a lab, or a great dane, or a great pyrenees (sp?), or an airedale, or an afghan hound, or a husky, or a pointer, or a weimaraner, or any mutt over 60 lbs, etc.

Know what the difference is? The fools who get badass dogs for the purpose of making them mean don't get those dogs, because those dogs don't have the badass reps. Rottweilers, pits, dobermans and shepherds do.

That is the difference.

[countingbluecars]

137. I understand that any of large dogs

you mentioned could be capable of pulling a child from an unsuspecting adult's arms, however not all large dogs have the tendency to attack in the manner the Rotweiler did. A bite is different from mauling to death.

[ulysses]

138. did you read the rest of the post

concerning the owners?

[countingbluecars]

142. Okay.

I reread it and I understand what you are saying. But I still believe that certain breeds are unpredictable and dangerous no matter the owner.

[ulysses]

143. fair enough, then.

But you're wrong. :P

[countingbluecars]

146. Back atcha.

[ulysses]

149. I'll bet.

:D

[Pithlet]

158. Breed does contribute.

A dog's size and strength does contribute in an attack. Due to certain physical attributes, a dog's bite can be more severe. And breed can be a determination in a dogs size and strength. Some breeds are bigger and stronger than others. That's not to say that there are "safe" breeds. There isn't a difference in kind, certainly. But, there is a difference in degree. The likelihood that a bite will be lethal is higher for some breeds. Certain behavioral traits can also be more specific to breed. It doesn't mean that every dog of that breed will have that trait, but it makes it more likely. Some breeds are more aggressive than others, regardless of size. Cocker Spaniels are an example of this, as well as Chihuahuas. Both can be very aggressive, although not all. But, due to their size and strength, the damage inflicted is less likely to be less fatal.

Edited for grammar.

[ulysses]

161. in degree, sure.

See my post #160.

[BattyDem]

113. Sad, isn't it?

:-(

[smbolisnch]

114. Yes, very sad indeed. n/t

[sniffa]

120. sad... that so many voted no

and i can't beLieve i'm the onLy person to nominate this thread.

:popcorn:

[smbolisnch]

122. Are you being sarcastic?

[sniffa]

125. no, i did nominate this thread

[smbolisnch]

127. You know what I meant, I think.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

207. I nominated it too sniffa

I think this thread is a hoot. I'm getting a lot of quotable qoutes from it. I think it should go in EVERYONE'S permanent file.

:nuke:

[Mutley]

148. I voted no.

Why punish responsible dog owners who keep their dogs properly fenced in their yards and on leashes when in public? I own two dogs, one of which is part Chow, a breed which is considered aggressive. She is not aggressive at all. I have stuck my hand in her food bowl while she is eating with no aggressive response. My small nephew has climbed all over her, pulling her tail and tugging her ears, with no aggressive response from the dog. I have been in her face, growling and barking at her in play, with no aggressive response.

Sure, some breeds are considered to be more aggressive than others, but it's all about how you treat the dog. I babysat a Pit Bull who was the sweetest most loving dog EVER. I accidentally stepped on his tail and he cried out. It hurt him. Did he bite me? No, he licked my face as I bent down to hug him and apologize for stepping on him. AND HE WAS A FORMER FIGHT DOG!!! His owner literally stole him from a man who fights dogs in her neighborhood. So, even with a history of being a fighter, this dog didn't have an aggressive bone in his body.

[ulysses]

155. I don't believe you.

Some breeds are simply vicious, no exceptions. You *played* with a pit bull? Can't be. They're murderers.

;-)

[Mutley]

157. Especially a former fighting pit bull!

What was I thinking? :crazy:

[ulysses]

160. one of the finest dogs I've ever known

was Umba. Umba was a Staffordshire terrier mix - Staffordshires are one of the breeds often mistaken for Pit Bulls.

Umba was a powerful boy, no doubt, and I had a great deal of respect for those jaws. Still, I used to get down on the floor and play for hours with that dog, who loved every minute of it.

Umba was owned by our friends, two gay men who doted on that dog. They treated him well - beyond well, actually...Umba lived like a prince - and he was a sweet dog. When he died last year, Dewayne had his name tattooed on his upper arm.

They kept Umba securely fenced, as is only good procedure for any dog. Would I have left a child alone with Umba? Even knowing him, probably not, but then I wouldn't have left a child alone with my brother-in-law's Japanese Chin either. That damn dog would bite without any kind of warning.

It's not the breed. It's how they're raised.

[Mutley]

162. Amen.

I'd like to know how many of the people who are claiming that all dogs of certain breeds are dangerous actually have experience with dogs.

[ulysses]

165. very few, I'd wager.

In fact, I'd bet that many dog "incidents" are the result of ignorance about how to deal with dogs in general.

[Mutley]

171. Agreed.

I have a lot of experience with dogs, and I can tell almost instantly if a dog is aggressive, and I stay away from it. Maybe if someone doesn't have much experience with dogs they should learn, or at least stay away from dogs. But don't punish those of us who are very responsible dog owners. This thread is killing me!

[ernstbass]

167. You make a good point

It's irresponsible to leave a small child unattended around any dog!!I personally think we need a registry for tots in daycare who bite!

[ulysses]

170. danger surrounds us.

That's life.

[donheld]

175. Sorry but in my humble opinion

This is the dumbest thing i've every heard of!:mad: :eyes::spank: :wtf: :argh: :spank: :grr: :nuke::spank: :banghead: :rant: :yoiks: :spank:

[friesianrider]

178. Absolutely not.

In my experience as a shelter volunteer for nearly 10 years and a dog owner my entire life, the ONLY Rotties/Pits/whatever-breed-is-a-convenient-scapegoat that attacked anybody were those who were irresponsibly bred in the first place and not properly socialized.

With so many criminals enjoying dog fighting, people think they will buy a dog from an irresponsible breeder to then irresponsibly breed that dog again and again. No thought is given to personality or attitude defects, only making money. Breeding any animal is a very intense science, if you are committed to breeding for the right reasons. It takes an amazing amount or research and testing by a veterinarian, and a commitment to showing that particular breed for many years to strive for conformational perfection. These people breeding Rotties and Pits are only looking for one characteristic (if they are looking for any at all): aggression. It is so hard to breed out bad characteristics - if not impossible. People who do not dedicate years and years to a specific breed and researching that breed SHOULD NOT breed. But they do, and you end up with unwanted dogs, strays who wander the street and attack, and unwanted litters who end up in the hands of shady people who aren't good owners.

If one really wants to solve this problem, they need not focus on "band-aid" fixes like banning specific breeds or registering dangerous dog owners. This ONLY HURTS the responsible owners who make sure their animals are leashed or contained at all times (the most aggressive dogs are usually owned by people who fight them, and if you think a city-wide ban will force them to leave you're sorely mistaken).

You need to get to the root of the problem, which, IMHO, is making sure people who have no business breeding do NOT breed. Even if it is an unplanned litter, chances are the dog will be given away free or cheap, and that vastly increases ths chances the dog will end up in fighting and/or not have a good, loving home, Chances are even less so that it will receive proper socialization (which - when done early and properly - I firmly believe is 99% of a dog's adult personality). It only creates countless problems - including this. I've worked in rescue too long and seen it too many times.

If there was a stronger crackdown on spaying and neutering, I think that many of these problems would diminish considerably.

[In_The_Wind]

181. no

[ArkDem]

183. My dog IS a sex offender!

[slackmaster]

192. Leg humper, or just a regular insatiable poon hound?

:argh:

[CubsFan1982]

185. That's fucking insane.

I mean, really. Get a clue.

[HuckleB]

188. How about a registry for all possible future sex offenders, murderers...

thieves, slick car sales people, hit and run drivers and on and on?

Comparing a poorly trained Rottweiler to the general population of dogs just doesn't follow logically.

[slackmaster]

189. Would the registry include information like bite radius?

How about fur snippets and photos and DNA samples?

How about someone who thinks this is a good idea providing statistics on how many dog bites go unsolved because the dog wasn't registered, or through what mechanism the registration of dogs would make the public safer?

:crazy:

[slackmaster]

193. My curio and relic dogs present no danger to public safety

Why should I have to foot the bill or have my freedom restricted because of the bad behavior of a few irresponsible dog owners?

[karlrschneider]

195. A silly idea. There are WAY more dogs than people in my community.

I don't think I know anyone within a mile that doesn't have at least 2.
:eyes:

[Xithras]

199. Registration? Nonsense.

Most people are attacked by dogs they know, or dogs they could clearly see well before the attack. Registration would do nothing to prevent those. As for the smaller percentage of people who are mauled by loose dogs, registration will again do NOTHING to prevent an attack. You can choose to avoid the homes that have dogs, but by definition, if the dog is loose, it isn't going to be where it's supposed to be (I once had a Lab get loose from my yard and vanish...30 minutes later I got a call from a guy who picked her up two miles from my home and found my number on her collar).

You MIGHT argue that registration will help in the identification of vicious dogs after an attack has occurred, but I doubt it. There are so many dogs in the US that even a list narrowed down to a few miles in diameter would be huge. Besides, most cities and towns already have dog licensing systems in place that require a basic description of the animal. I wouldn't object to attaching a photograph to the record, but the existing system works fairly well.

Of course, even with existing laws, there are HUGE numbers of dogs that aren't licensed (heck, I've owned nearly a dozen in my life, and never licensed one of them). If you can't get people to license their dogs using the current legally mandated and relatively painless process, what are the odds that people will register them under some new system?

[corkhead]

205. I thought this was another Santorum thread eom

[countingbluecars]

210. Good one.

[Moderator]

212. Locking....

It seems that this conversation
has run its course.