It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'm a bit torn on this (and being an American, it doesn't directly effect me...yet...) but I am in favor of a competence test...and here is why.

A dog, while I do feel they should be given more credit then they get by a lot of people, is a possession. It can be used for good, or for evil.

Same thing with a gun. I can use it just for hunting and to protect myself in the case of an intruder...but I can also just leave it laying outside for some kid to find.

I don't mean to offend dog lovers by comparing them to a gun. I think dogs have a "soul" more or less. i've seen the fear in a dogs eyes, i've seen absolute love in others. I've seen the hate and every other emotion a human has.

The insurance though...that should be optional.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
I'm a bit torn on this (and being an American, it doesn't directly effect me...yet...) but I am in favor of a competence test...and here is why.


I'm torn, too, at first glance. I don't like the idea of a mandatory test, but I wouldn't mind taking it or a class or something like that. But I'm not sure how much good it would do. I belong to several dog boards and even though the information is out there, people do some really stupid things regarding dogs. But I don't like the idea of a government mandate. People are going to get around it if they can. And taking a test doesn't guarantee that the new pit bull owner isn't going to turn around and find a fighting circle to train his dog in...

I don't approve of the taxpayer having to buy dog insurance, at all.

I'm not offended at all about the gun comment. You're absolutely right. My breed of choice is one that could be as dangerous as a gun.

Bottom line is the government making these rules isn't going to change the vast majority of issues surrounding dogs. It's just a "feel-good" measure to make people think they're doing something about it.

I know my post rambles. Sorry.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but there is a trend here for inner city youths and young men to own "aggressive" dogs as street weapons.

I put "aggressive" in quotations, because in my experience, a dog is a reflection of its owner.

A competemcy test is not a bad idea.

But insurance is just going to make more work for the best friends of this government - lawyers.

I've had enough of the blame and claim culture in this country.

If someone trains a dog to be a bodsyguard, take their possessions - we don't need any more litigation legislation, and nor do we need more rip off "insurance" agencies who never pay out, or who take 2 or more years to settle a claim...

[edit on 3/3/2010 by budski]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Bud, we all know how skint this country is now thanks to our goverment.
At £60 a shot this is a pathetic attempt at raising revenue.

Unfortunately the genuine dog lovers and owners will reluctantly pay up whilst the irrsponsible one's will either ignore it or kick the dog's out onto the street.

Being a dog owner and lover I understand the sentiment and reasoning behind this, it's just impractical....and the irony is we allow any human being to breed regardless of suitability.

But it is irrelevant, there is not enough time between now and the end of this Parliament for it to come into effect.




 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join