941
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
941 points (93.7% liked)
Memes
45680 readers
1236 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who's close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don't care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like "The dog has never done anything like that". That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don't think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That's extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I've come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I've never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you've gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don't entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don't agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary... perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
The issue is that for every good dog owner who trains their dog, puts it on a leash in public, picks up the dog shit and makes sure their dog can't cause trouble, there is also some idiot who got a dog on a whim, mistreats it and doesn't train it at all.
And most often the people who don't care for training their dog are also the people who don't care to secure the dog in public places.
I know that's a generalisation and there probably are some counter examples. But a "don't care" attitude generally runs through everything a person does.
And having a dog is a multiplier of what trouble that "don't care" attitude can cause.
That's why I am for licensing/inspections. For someone who does care it probably won't change much. They already go to a training course with their dog. Just give them a license for completing the training/make that training mandatory if you don't want to call it a license.
Any reasonable dog owner will be at vet in regular intervals anyway. Just let the vet not only check whether the dog is physically fit, but also if it obeys it's owner and if it shows signs of abuse. And make that checkup mandatory. It's better for the dogs anyway if they get their health checked regularly.
I see why you think it's not necessary, because you might be the kind of dog owner who cares and then it's just additional hassle. But, as I said, there are many who don't care, even if in your bubble (and I don't mean this word negatively) everyone cares for their dogs.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
Social services don't pay for your dog's vet. Why should it pay for other dog expenses?
Regarding gun control, I luckily live in a country with decent gun control laws. So our death rate due to gun violence in peace time doesn't resemble the civilian casulty rate in some war zones.
So how will you actually regulate it without a department of dog liscencing?
Let me add, we are talking about millions of dogs.
You can have a department for something like that. But it doesn't have to be funded by the tax payer. That's what license fees are there for. Works great for cars already (at least where I am from).
But seriosly, "but regulation costs money" is a pretty weak argument, because everything costs money.
Don't get me wrong. You put in a dog licensing facility I am all for it. I just think, and please correct me, the amount of political capital people would have to invest could be spent elsewhere and provide much greater returns.
That makes sense what you are saying. The real question is how the majority of the population sees the issue.
Take for example smoking bans in restaurants and public buildings. In my county this was something the politicians didn't want to do for a very long time because they feared the backlash of the smokers. But after a very successful public petition for enacting a smoking ban they did some surveys and found out that almost 70% of the population was for such a ban.
They then enacted the ban and all the smokers where like "The restaurants are all going to die". Then the ban came and it was just business as usual. Nothing bad happened and actually, revenue increased because more non-smokers came to the restaurants.
I don't have statistics on how many people would want stronger regulation of dogs, and that value might vary a lot between places. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. if it happens after a particularly gruesome dog attack) stuff like that might not even need too much political capital.
For example, after a pitbull killed a toddler who was just walking down the road, the city where I live enacted compulsory leashes in all public places. There was no shitstorm against it.