Quote: natalya zahn

Absolutely true. HOWEVER, as John implies, the only way to separate these irresponsible people out and even attempt to punish them for their careless behavior is to set OURSELVES apart FIRST and create a good standard, by which we can judge the rest exhempt ourselves from blanket legislation that has no educated boundaries - sad but true, the responsible people are often left with the hardest work, but it's a price I personally am happy to pay in order to raise above the status of the idiots.

Honestly, the type of licensing procedure we're talking about (handler test, temperment test for dog) would be a piece of cake for those truly "in the right" to own one of these powerful breeds and MUCH easier to stomach than my dog falling vicitm to a mandatory spay/neuter law, muzzling law or all out ban. Sometimes you just have to pick the lesser of 2 evils...

~Natalya

But WHO decides what kind of testing and requirements? Who will set the standards? See, this is where the slippery slope starts. If I had any confidence it was you, or Sandy, or Ed making up the rules and requirements then I wouldn't have a problem with this. But you notice it's not anyone we agree with making up the laws...it's the all-or-nothing crowd pushing BS legislation. And it's getting worse every day, not better.

 Quote: sarah_morris

But WHO decides what kind of testing and requirements? Who will set the standards? See, this is where the slippery slope starts. If I had any confidence it was you, or Sandy, or Ed making up the rules and requirements then I wouldn't have a problem with this. But you notice it's not anyone we agree with making up the laws...it's the all-or-nothing crowd pushing BS legislation. And it's getting worse every day, not better.

Well who are WE to label the "idiots" and the "irrisponsible" then??? What CURRENTLY IN PLACE test have these people failed that would have stopped them from, say, flimisly tying their (insert "powerful" breed) in the backyard all day, denying it socialization and attention, then having it break loose and make a snack out of the neighbor's dog while they're not even home?? I'm not saying I know exactly what the answer is here - I'm certainly not at all qualified to create the tests... but somehow the CURRENT system isn't working and just pointing fingers and railing against any and all suggestions that might in any way challenge a person's "rights" is just not productive, nor a realistic argument if you ask me. Sorry, you can go ahead and attack me for being a liberal, but I assure you I don't want to live in a communist country either...

I would hope that if we did in fact all decide that requiring training and handling skills were necessary to legally own a dog, than the body chosen to manage that system would have to be populated by people who were THEMSELVES trained correctly, it would defeat the entire puprose if politicians passed such a ruling then promptly turned around and put on dog trainer caps...

~Natalya

*not trying to pick any fights here - sometimes it's the most intense discussion that sparks the best ideas and solutions...

No I was talking about restricting which breeds you can own, or restricting in general.

I guess I jumped thoughts... sorry ... I was thinking that if we controlled dog licensing similiar to driver's licensing, that would at least make people educated ... however, enforcement would be an issue..

my apologies for not being clear.

I have to completely disagree with you Natalya. It is not government's right, nor should it have the power, to "make" me study something, anything. It's my choice what I study, just as it's my choice to relinquish my rights - which is something I won't do.

George Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." We, the people, need to keep it under control.

James Madison: "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." Be careful for whom you vote.

Are we to constantly bend to and be accepting of oppression and restriction of our fought for and died for rights? Not me. Can't do it, based on principle alone. Principles this nation was founded on.

If an argument holds truth, it would hold truth across the board, so how does government requiring me to take a test/course before I can get a certain breed of dog transfer over to people becoming parents? It doesn't transfer over, because (at least for now) no one would acquiesce (submit or comply silently or without protest) to such a thing. But if you continue to accept minor trade-ins for your rights, it's a one-way road, there's no turning back.

It's obvious that parenting a child holds a great deal more responsibility than having a dog and the ramifications (crime, abuse of others, etc) of having a child that cares about no one but himself and carries that into adulthood are much more serious to society as a whole. Yet would you want government to control whether you can become a parent or not? I am at times so tempted to say yes, to spare some children a life of hell and to spare their children the same horrors, but I won't say yes. We have to live by principles in government, not what seems to be right at the moment, or by some ill thought out law that's based on another ill thought out law used for precedent, or by politicians' ideas for more control, conceived at a party while drinking whiskey.

Slippery slope, no way back. Keep it simple, keep us free.

Hey Natalya...

No attacks or anger at you personally. Strong feelings about this whole subject...absolutely! If I came off that way then you have my most sincere apology

Sandy,

I aggree with you more than I disagree, BUT you are using logic that does not apply to this arguement. You do have rights, but rights that pertain to an object of ownership that has the potential to be used to injur or kill another person with rights themselves characteristically require restriction, licensure, and in some cases education. You have a right to drive, as long as you have a license and follow the rules. You have a right to bear arms, as long as you are licensed to to so and are not a felon. A dog in the eyes of the law is an object that we own above all else, and a living thing that deserves humane treatment second. Comparing that to a child which is a living thing that has rights from the moment of conception is apples and oranges. I do not support breed banning AT ALL, as it will only harm the individuals that will follow the law and are responsible owners. The same logic applies for me to guns and even drugs for that matter. Me owning my two GSD's and being free to do so does not help me when some time in the future I cannot obtain insurance because our free economy has dictated that the level of risk associated with insuring the GSD breed in general is just too great because of the idiots that own them. Licensing which requires owner responsibility and temperment testing (which all of us here are already doing) would allow insurance companies to only insure the licensed dogs and bring down that risk level to acceptable. I see no other way to cull the morons from the crowd and protect... yes protect our rights.

 Quote: sandy moore

 Quote: alex corral

...Sandy, we have already lost that right to own certain breeds. All we are trying to do is agree to a fair requirement to regain that right. True, there are idiots who will do the required, get licensed and still be idiots, but there will also be people who's light bulb will turn on while taking the course. Some people can only be stupid for so long and in getting licensed some will finally "get it". Remember, we lost the right to own any breed we want a long time ago.

Alex, what are you referring to, exactly? Lost our right to own any breed we want? Where, in Colorado? I'm not aware of laws restricting my right to own any breed I want, so if you can name the states or cities, that would be good. What exactly do you mean?

If people can restrict my right to own whatever breed of dog I want (where do the he** do we live anyway???), then I EXPECT laws to restrict parenthood of children.

This is what I mean Sandy: BSL , More BSL , BSL Petition

My sister & brother in law have had to call the county & their homeowner's company first to see what kind of dog they can have. They were looking at an Am Bulldog, nope. A Dogo, nope. Sorry. They are hoping the Rottie they get, won't get ripped from their home in a few years like all the PBs did in 2005.

I think that's one of the questions you have to ask when you buy a dog. The first thing I think is "Will I be able to take this dog with me when I move?" and the second is "Am I willing to move in order to keep this dog, if I have to?"

 Quote: david eagle

I think that's one of the questions you have to ask when you buy a dog. The first thing I think is "Will I be able to take this dog with me when I move?" and the second is "Am I willing to move in order to keep this dog, if I have to?"

But that is exactly what I DON'T want to do. The only way to accomplish that is a different licensing process.

 Quote: John J. Miller

Sandy,

I aggree with you more than I disagree, BUT you are using logic that does not apply to this arguement. You do have rights, but rights that pertain to an object of ownership that has the potential to be used to injur or kill another person with rights themselves characteristically require restriction, licensure, and in some cases education. You have a right to drive, as long as you have a license and follow the rules. You have a right to bear arms, as long as you are licensed to to so and are not a felon. A dog in the eyes of the law is an object that we own above all else, and a living thing that deserves humane treatment second. Comparing that to a child which is a living thing that has rights from the moment of conception is apples and oranges. I do not support breed banning AT ALL, as it will only harm the individuals that will follow the law and are responsible owners. The same logic applies for me to guns and even drugs for that matter. Me owning my two GSD's and being free to do so does not help me when some time in the future I cannot obtain insurance because our free economy has dictated that the level of risk associated with insuring the GSD breed in general is just too great because of the idiots that own them. Licensing which requires owner responsibility and temperment testing (which all of us here are already doing) would allow insurance companies to only insure the licensed dogs and bring down that risk level to acceptable. I see no other way to cull the morons from the crowd and protect... yes protect our rights.

What he said!

~Natalya