mozzaok
Gold Member
   
Offline

OzPolitic
Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender:
|
I agree with most of your points there Oceans, the number of dog attacks is unacceptable, and the dangerous breeds need to be more carefully controlled. I have always been very much against people breeding "guard" dogs by trying to breed aggression into them. My last dog was a red heeler, staffordshire terrier cross. I got him from the pound at six weeks old, and despite my best efforts to suppress a natural aggressive streak in him, he always kept it, and I had to look after him with that knowledge in mind.
He never hurt anyone, but in different circumstances he could have, and that unpredictable, aggressive streak is in quite a few dogs.
I have had a purebred German Shepherd, and a cross breed Shepherd, both large dogs but also both dogs, which did not have a nasty bone in their bodies, and could confidently leave them in a nursery of children to get poked and prodded and they would never have shown any aggression.
To cater for safe and responsible dog ownership, it could well get to the point, where dogs must go through an assessment from a specialist animal behaviour expert to assess their suitability to be kept as pets, and as a prerequisite for licencing them.
It would also be nice to see owners receive some training as part of dog licensing as well, and while it may seem extreme, if it saves some from going through the horror of an animal attacking them, it could well be worth it.
As well, I think we need to accept that some breeds just carry too many aggressive tendencies, and therefore should be banned.
Pitbulls, and Huskies immediately spring to mind, but I am sure there are many more breeds we can happily do without, which will make dog ownership safer for all.
|