Now the Government wants competence tests before you can be a dog owner

My parents bred Kerry Blue Terriers for years (originally created to kill badgers, later used for pit fighting in some areas). One of the things they did with every candidate owner was sit them down and discuss what they were getting into.

9/10 times the people left and were never heard from again. They were interested in the look of the animal without any idea of what ownership entailed

RESPONSIBLE breeders always talk to the purchaser first, usually several times, before deciding to sell to them. If people are buying animals that they cannot handle it is because of where they got them and a total lack of research into what the particular breed involves.

Personally I think this is a step in three seperate directions. First it is obviously yet another tax grab. Secondly I think this is a back door to having dogs listed as dangerous weapons. Third, I think they are trying to make certain breeds illegal without having to defend their choices

For example; no one will be qualified to own a Pitbull. Banning the breed would cause problems with the breeders who, for the most part, have money to fight such a ban.

Dogs are almost symbiotes with humanity. There is evidence to show that the domestication of dogs, originally thought to be roughly 50 000 years ago, is actually more like 100 000 to 125 000 years (based on genetic tests on mitochondrial DNA).

50 000 years ago we were living in small communities, we had domesticated limited numbers of both plants and livestock.

100 000-125 000 years ago we were still hunter/gathers grunting in caves. The possible domestication of the dog at this point in human history has a profound impact on the evolution of not only our society, but also our species as a whole.

Coming back to the present, the number one feature of a dog (regardless of when in time you are) is that it will protect it's owner to the death.

Not something government wants in a police state.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by [davinci]]

honestly that would be fine to have a competency test for dogs, but if they are going to do it for dogs they should do it for kids, i know a ton of people with kids that should NOT have them, and personally in my opinion you need to be a lot more responsible with kids then dogs

im a lot less concerned with a dumb ass raising a dog then i am with a dumb ass raising a kid

if they raise a dog, you just have a dumb dog, but its still a dog

if they raise a kid, well hell, it just keeps the cycle going, and way too many dumb ass people are breeding raising way to many more dumb ass kids


sometimes the truth hurts but from what ive personally seen, we really need new rules on who can and cant have kids, especially in a world thats quickly becoming over populated and running out of resources

I really can't get happy with the idea of this. It sounds unconstitutional.

We have the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear dogs. lol.

There are multitudes of parenting classes all over the country. Nurses are very good about referring young, first time, inexperienced mothers to these, and any other parents they perceive might need this type class. Many of them are free.

But to require this, in order to conceive a child, is getting into some very unappealing territory by my assessment.

Also, having given this some thought since I initially read the OP, I would oppose this type action with dogs, also.

There are already leash laws in place in most cities. If you violate that law, and your dog attacks someone, then you should be accountable for it.

We don't need to make the assumption that most dogs attack. They do not.

Dogs are dogs, Humans are humans and one specie looking after another does require some sort of competence, and responsibility. It's the lack of owner training that makes dogs and other pets, not only dangerous at one end of the scale but a nuisance at the other. All owners should be made to have some kind of course, as the car sticker says "A dog is not just for Christmas" Dogs tend to be loyal to their owner, apply that to a vicious BREED and noone else is safe. Anyway it is a working document that has been leaked, and the Mail is just making a dog's dinner of it.

reply to post by timski

Now that part makes sense...or would dog owners prefer to be sued into poverty at having to meet the expenses of the victim of the dog-bite out of their own pocket?

I would prefer not to be forced to buy insurance for my dog which will never, ever bite anyone.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
We don't need to make the assumption that most dogs attack. They do not.

I'll remind you of a quote from one of your threads:

"Suppose you want to prove that all dogs bite. You will not lie, you will simply only report about biting dogs". That is to the complete omission of the dogs who are gentle, and do not bite, of course.

(Now I'll go post in that one what I wanted to add about that. )

Having dog sat (looked after) some of the so-called most dangerous breeds it's all about responsibility - do not train your dog to be a killer but by all means be a guard dog. They so reflect their owners, and admittedly you get a bad egg once in a while .... let's do the stats on dogs going fubar and killing , versus owners committing a murder perhaps ?

Much like parenting what you put in , you get out.

I for one watching Jeremy Kyle the odd ten minutes , would love to see parents being schooled in the art of parenting (given their young ages) or better still licensed (given their selfish attitudes!)

Worst case scenario the teens with babies get a rottweiler for fun and then how are we left?

We need education/legislation , whether it starts with the animals and progresses (????) to our own new born who knows !

It all boils down to yet another layer of bureaucracy, yet another way to tax us, yet another way to tag and database us, and yet another aspect of life that the State can now dictate to you on, and which you'll need their permission to enjoy/experience.

When is it ever going to end with these control-freak morons?

I sure wish the law would enforce such competence tests for those who wish to have children. Most folks under 25 years of age cant even raise a gold fish but insist on making babies like they are pets.

In my opinion, a lot of you are blowing this out of the proportion, and using it as a reason to bash the government. Pet abandonment is an epidemic, and shelters fill up quickly.

Perhaps the test will save a few animal's life. Hell, if you can't afford to take the test then you can't afford to raise an animal.

reply to post by pplrnuts


This is disturbing because it places so many of our personal freedoms and civil liberties into the hands of the government.

Are we scarcely able to make decisions for ourselves anymore?
I'm thinking I don't need or want the government telling me how to live, and I'm reasonably sure most others don't either.

Again, social services and medical services are excellent at identifying those who need assistance in parenting, and to what degree they need this. The rest of us should be left alone. Yes, leave me alone with my dogs, too, please. Don't need your help, but thanks anyway.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


...and I still agree with that.

It's rather sad when the government essentially says that we, citizens, don't have enough sense to know when a dog has issues and becomes vicious, and are clueless as to what actions to take when they do.

And there are people saying, yeah, right, they're right. We need someone to step in, and tell us.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy

Ooops this is in the UK......LOL doesn't surprise me one bit! UK has fallen so far from grace. Unfortunately your influence still runs rampant over here in America as far as laws. I thought we already kicked your ass once............

It's comments like this from [snip] that make the US by far the most hated nation on earth!

Please explain the relevance of the back handed dig at the UK?

It is a good job that I, like many others here on ATS, know enough Americans to know that you are not really stereotypical of most Americans.

I suspect that you personally would never have the balls or the ability to be able to kick anyone's ass!

Apologies but I couldn't let that go without replying.

On topic.

This is just another money making scam by the government and won't happen as they probably won't be re-elected at the next general election.



Edited personal attack

[edit on 3/3/10 by masqua]

reply to post by sdcigarpig


(British) Dog attacks on Increase

Not hard to figure out really. People can't have guns for defense so they adopt big dangerous dogs. I would too... if I were a Brit! And I wouldn't need a Brittish government course on dangerous dogs, thank you!

By Bob Roberts, Political Editor 31/12/2007 Dog attacks have soared during the last decade as animals are increasingly used as weapons, it was revealed yesterday. Victims treated in hospital rose to 5,943 last year - up from 4,328 in 1999 when records began. It is believed dogs such as Rottweilers and Staffordshire bull terriers are being used by thugs for protection and to attack or intimidate rivals after the crackdown on guns and knives.

Another example of government out of control and out of touch.

reply to post by plumranch


Yikes! Now, that's a terrible thing. This is an example of abuse, because it places the animal's life in danger. Some gangsta would simply shoot it.

Animals are so innocent (until proven guilty)

This type exploitation was not meant to be.

But as someone else pointed out, it's this type person who is going to do it anyway, with or without a law. The law-abiding people will cooperate, but this criminal population won't adhere to it, in keeping with their lifestyle.

So, it won't really make a difference in that respect. Just another hoop for people who already take care of their dogs to jump through.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Yikes! Now, that's a terrible thing. This is an example of abuse, because it places the animal's life in danger. Some gangsta would simply shoot it

Not in practice. The "gangsta" will see or hear the dog and move on to an unprotected house or owner.

Again, owning an ugly dog is legal. Protecting yourself with a firearm in Brittain is illegal. You have a valuable property, what are you going to do?

The government course is politically correct sillyness. Here is an example of responsible dog use:

I'm a responsible big ugly dog ex owner. I had a Chow cross 14years for a guard dog/ companion dog. As a pup I taught it never to ever (ever) bite a human or other animal but to bark. That's all he ever needed to do. My place was of course never burgled when he was there. Teaching a pup not to bite but to bark is easy.

This idea folks,Is classic knee jerk reaction by the Government...They have done it twice before I think,postulated that tests/licenences should be required for dog owership-One time Rottweillers were the excuse,then it was pit bulls..

I would agree that some dog owners never should be allowed near a dog(those who use dogs as weapons,or for fighting),and I am a firm believer in how the owners behaviour "shapes" that of the dog.

If you see someone walking towards you with their dog,you can tell how the dog will behave by looking at the owner in some cases,especially if the owner looks thug like.

For these people who abuse mans best friend,the police already have sufficient powers to take the animals,and impose bans on the owners.

I,as a responsible dog owner,(7 so far in my lifetime)I do not feel that I should have to pay for a dog licence,or ownership tests-If they are free,I would volunteer-If they are another cash steal from the gov,they can sod off IMO.

reply to post by plumranch


Oh, sure. Of course. Mine always alert me when something unusual is going on. Most of them do that naturally, don't have to be taught.

Even with a small dog, a burglar will sometimes move on, just because he doen't want to be bothered with the noise.

With this conversation, my mind was going to using dogs as "weapons", and putting them in positions to risk their lives for you. They remain defenseless against firearms. Not a fair exhange.

But as burglar and intruder alarms? They are good little helpers. Sometimes too good, when they are "alerting" you about a squirrel, or
some such other "non-emergency". lol.

I would say the only test should be, whether or not you are able to receive unconditional love.... As this seem's to be the only source of it, these days, on this earth.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Even with a small dog, a burglar will sometimes move on, just because he doen't want to be bothered with the noise.

Right! Probably usually would move on. Even with my fearless little noisemakers, but the large fearless, threatening dog, burglars wouldn't bother.

The problem with young inexperienced dog owners is they often have no idea how to teach their dog not to bite when they are puppies. It involves subordination, not allowing them to nip the fingers and not playing tug of war till they are trained.

My city has owners post a huge bail on their dog's first biting offense. Actually that works very well as even a stubborn, senseless owner will become wise after posting that $10,000 for their "dangerous dog"! And then loose their $10,000 on 2nd offense!