[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Sorry to all the members who are fond of the so called fighting breeds and are feeling like they are being attacked. I must take you back to my first inference on this thread - BAD DOG OWNERS who own a fighting breed is a recipe for harbouring a dangerous dog.

IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS who own ANY kind of dog is a recipe for harbouring a dangerous dog. I don't care if it's Auntie Mae's five pound Malti-shi-pekeadoodle or a so-called "fighting" breed. Size doesn't matter, a dangerous dog is a dangerous dog - PERIOD! About 15 years ago in the county north of me an 8 to 10 year old girl was tragically killed by a pack of 3 - 4 dogs as she got off her school bus and was headed home. Headlines predictably read: Pit Bulls kill child." Of the four dogs, only one had ANY remote resemblance to something terrier or bully. I saw the dogs on television and YES, I can recognize bully type and features. Our county decided to try and pass a breed ban. During that time I did some research into the history of "fighting" dogs and learned quite a bit. While it is not a "sport" I condone or support, from a historical perspective it is rather interesting when looking at purpose and temperament of the dogs used. Dogs were fought in a pit, hence the source of the "pit" in the name. Pit bull refers to not one breed, but to a group of dogs used in the pit. Human aggression is not a trait they are supposed to have. When being fought, there were two handlers and a judge in the pit with the dogs and any sign of human aggression, turning on the handlers or the judge would result in the dog being euthanized immediately. Bull dogs, were used for bringing bulls/cattle into the slaughter house. They would latch on to the nose/head of the cow and "lead" it into the slaughter house. The wrinkles on the bulldog's face were selected for as the blood ran down those instead of getting in the eyes.

I don't agree that gaining a certificate (licence) to say that one is capable of owning dogs and taking good care of them is elitist or impractical. Some people earn a certificate saying they have qualified to handle a dog after they have obtained a dog ( puppy training, good citizen awards etc). I am saying that maybe people should be getting these kinds of qualifications before the puppy arrives.

A dog is a life that has basic needs, but it is an animal. Define "good care" - the way *I* do things or the way *YOU* do things or the way a third party defines it. Good citizen awards or graduating puppy training only says the dog/human team has passed the criteria for that class. It does not mean they are "qualified" to handle a dog pre or post ownership - examples of that are abundant, not only on GoCorgi but on every other dog list around. This whole mentality is just a part of the ARista philosophy that animals are equal or above humans. None of this is required for having a child, which I think is just a wee bit greater responsibility than owning a pet.

I'll admit to having a chuckle at the hypocrisy here. The glee, support and encouragement of someone to get a corgi puppy when the current dog in the home was a victim of neglect and near abuse, not to mention there is NO way this particular individual would "pass" such a requirement test is amusing. Then we throw in the blatant support and encouragement of anyone who thinks they just "might" want to have a litter. Now the suggestion is to have a requirement test to own a dog, with the extra bonus of cutting down on the number of disposable pets might be frustrating IF the hypocrisy and suggestion weren't so predictable.

I don't see that child care and motor cars are relevant or parallel with dog ownership.

Both are responsibilities, as is dog ownership. Raising a child is one of the most important thing one can do. The process to drive a car parallel with testing and requirements is very much like your suggestion to gain a license to own a dog. A motor car can be a much more lethal weapon than a dog and just because someone passes all the requirements, it is not going to make them a competent or responsible driver necessarily.

Which of our members don't think they could gain a licence to own a dog.

I can take the requirements in the HEART ordinance, the one in St. Louis, and a part of Italy's dangerous dog requirements and have your license revoked. Off-leash at any time or on anything longer than 4 foot is in violation. Taylor is intact, have to pay your intact licensing fee and he will need to be muzzled in public, fencing is required and signs posted, intact dogs are more dangerous than castrated/spayed ones - that's just a very short list - want to continue?

Debbie