Great Dane "Attack"

[fluid power]

My point was more that a walk on the leash just doesn't do it for DPA for a lot of breeds, or just young dogs in general. Add into that many owners with advanced age or mobility problems (or just plain out of shape people) that preclude multi-kilometer walks. and really you come to the conclusion that off-leash time is pretty much a reality for most people with dogs.

Totally Disagree.

If you don't have the proper fenced yard to let your dog run and play off leash, or you are physically unable to walk your dog properly, you either shouldn't have a dog, or you should choose a different breed that has less energy.

Being a responsible dog owner goes beyond taking care of a dog you own. It is about knowing your limitations, and the dogs requirements before you acquire a dog. To many people buy dogs selfishly, and can't give the dog the environment it needs. Way too often I see situations where high energy dogs are locked in a house, suite, condo, all day, and only let out to do their business, If the dog is lucky it might get a 10 minute walk every once and awhile. I don't think these owners should have those dogs.

This might sound a little extreme, but.....
I believe that somebody should need a license before buying a dog, and that license should only be issued if the potential owner can prove it has the right environment for that breed to live in.

[Xia33]

"Might be a little extreme"? Might? If that were the case, then they "might" want to check on the mentality, health, fitness, etc., of the prospective owner? And who might be the judge of capabilities to own a dog? A dog trainer with an already dubious history/reputation? Rdco dog control? Office staff?
A person may have an "environment", ie., fenced yard, etc...but they may be back yard breeders, they may be fit and young but does that make them good dog owners? Maybe they should also make a certain amount of money per year as well? Do you see where I am going with this?
Laws, obviously, do not solve everything. Maybe there needs to be a licence issued to have a kid as well?

[Fancy]

Dogs are property - kids aren't (and they do get taken away from time to time). I don't think licencing to own a pet is the answer as the criteria would never be acceptable to everyone (I can see the abuse of that system now) and more regulation people don't need.

[kgcayenne]

Maybe there needs to be a licence issued to have a kid as well?

Yup. But that is another topic altogether.

It's trendy to have a dog, lots of lemmings want to be 'cool'. Some of them shouldn't be in charge of caring for another living thing.

[Fancy]

Abiding by the rules already in place would be a start - and enforcement/education could be increased.

[Xia33]

imo it isn't "trendy" to have a dog.....people have had dogs for eons...every walk of life, every type of person. What is "trendy" imo is the rules and regulations that are required now. Dogs cannot simply be dogs and people have fears that they never had before(maybe because every incident, serious or not, is published??) plus the fact that people, in general, believe now they have the right to control every little thing. They don't give a tinker's dam about their neighbors' rights and freedoms...only what is good for the individual....a generalization, I know, but closer to the truth as I see it. Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, maybe there are times when it is best kept to themselves?
Dog "trainers" are a dime a dozen, good or bad. As with any other animal, there are varying opinions on how to "train" and what a "trained" dog should be....no reactions to anything, more human than dog? Dog owners are a dime a dozen, good or bad. Back yard breeders (rampant) are making money on "mutts" and although all puppies are adorable, a lot of people put no thought into the breed or look any further in the future than a day or two in regard to the dog's care and/or well being. How do you fix that, I ask.

[Daspoot]

Totally Disagree.

If you don't have the proper fenced yard to let your dog run and play off leash, or you are physically unable to walk your dog properly, you either shouldn't have a dog, or you should choose a different breed that has less energy.

Being a responsible dog owner goes beyond taking care of a dog you own. It is about knowing your limitations, and the dogs requirements before you acquire a dog. To many people buy dogs selfishly, and can't give the dog the environment it needs. Way too often I see situations where high energy dogs are locked in a house, suite, condo, all day, and only let out to do their business, If the dog is lucky it might get a 10 minute walk every once and awhile. I don't think these owners should have those dogs.

This might sound a little extreme, but.....
I believe that somebody should need a license before buying a dog, and that license should only be issued if the potential owner can prove it has the right environment for that breed to live in.

I get what you're jisting in your post, but much of it is completely unrealistic. I agree dogs should not be cooped up or tied up for much of their lives. I think it's unrealistic to say dogs should be on-leash everywhere it is mandated, as witnessed by all the dogs off leash in these areas every day. I also think those who say dogs either need to be leashed off of their property or have a 100 recall rate are completely unrealistic and setting yourself up for disappointment.

[matai]

This might sound a little extreme, but.....
I believe that somebody should need a license before buying a dog, and that license should only be issued if the potential owner can prove it has the right environment for that breed to live in.

IMO, it would be wiser to spend money on implementing licenses to have babies to start with before implementing licences to become a dog owner. My 2 cents.

If you are a responsible parent chances are you'll be a responsible dog owner.

[Bsuds]

If you are a responsible parent chances are you'll be a responsible dog owner.

Unfortunately there are lots of irresponsible people out there who have both kids and dogs.

[FSmith59]

I skimmed the last couple pages, but I did notice no one has made this point.

Dogs "off" leash, in uncommon situations, with other dogs they have not been associated with, will most likely lead to a confrontation.

Dogs are pack animals. There is always an alpha. If you are a responsible owner, then YOU are the alpha.

But throw a bunch of dogs into the same place, from different packs, and there will be a bunch of those alphas, all trying to assert dominance.

End result, dog fight.

On leash rules are there for a reason.

[Bunnyhop]

I skimmed the last couple pages, but I did notice no one has made this point.

Dogs "off" leash, in uncommon situations, with other dogs they have not been associated with, will most likely lead to a confrontation.

Dogs are pack animals. There is always an alpha. If you are a responsible owner, then YOU are the alpha.

But throw a bunch of dogs into the same place, from different packs, and there will be a bunch of those alphas, all trying to assert dominance.

End result, dog fight.

On leash rules are there for a reason.

Actually, that is no longer the accepted theory for dogs' social structures. Even with wolves (which aren't as pertinent to dogs as once thought) wildlife biologists no longer use the term "alpha". The term used is breeding pair. According to Dr. Mech who introduced the alpha theory way back when. With respect to dogs, dominance only means "priority access to resources", it is not a status within a group.

Here's a place to start reading on the current school of thought: https://www.4pawsu.com/k9myths.html

And one more: http://www.leecharleskelley.com/top10my ... eader.html

[Xia33]

Actually, that is no longer the accepted theory for dogs' social structures. Even with wolves (which aren't as pertinent to dogs as once thought) wildlife biologists no longer use the term "alpha". The term used is breeding pair. According to Dr. Mech who introduced the alpha theory way back when. With respect to dogs, dominance only means "priority access to resources", it is not a status within a group.

As with any other subject, there are many, many trains of thought....quite often proven and/or considered wrong a few years down the road. imo most dogs, without human interferance, work things out just fine. We lived in Mexico for a long time with a lot of loose dogs around....never saw a dog fight in that whole time, nor aggression toward other dogs or humans. The only aggressive dogs I saw were ones that were "trained"....kind of makes you go "huh" about all the hype here.

[Bunnyhop]

Yes, the study and observation of feral dogs has contributed to the current theories that dogs are not "pack" animals. Feral dogs will group together at times, and when it benefits them, but the groups are loosely structured with dogs coming and going randomly. Male dogs don't participate in raising the litters as is seen with wolves - that is one huge difference between their social structures.

And while these are all presented as theories, they are all based in fact to some degree. Theories evolve, as does factual science. As we learn more, we understand more. Continuing to make decisions on "old" theories doesn't get us anywhere, whether it is studying animal behaviour or medicine. Always, always, we want to improve and move forward.

[FSmith59]

*removed*

Well I have read blogs from paws4u. We have even exchanged emails about this theory. We agree to disagree.

Paws theory disagrees, with what is the overwhelming belief of dog behaviour, by hundreds of legitimate experts. The rebuttal you refer to from paws, is based on the opinions of a small handful of expets that share the same beliefs.

I find those writings to be dangerous and laughable at the same time. When one idea becomes proven, there will always be others trying to discredit it, right or wrong. For those that choose to believe in the minority, harm can come from that misinformation. I am not saying to not read opposing points of view, but to do so with care.

There is always an alpha...the dominant male. The beta is usually the dominant, mating female. But there is not a couple, or breeding pair, in the sense of dominance. The beta female can be removed from that position, if the alpha male disagrees with her behaviour. This behaviour has been shown and proven, over and over. Many beta females have been removed, and then usually shunned by the rest of the pack.

Wolf hierarchy is even more obvious. The alpha male will take out the female over any sign of weakness. If the female shows too much empathy to a weak pup, the male will kill them both, for the sake of the pack. Wolves are much more predictable in their pack behaviour, than domesticated dogs.

[FSmith59]

We lived in Mexico for a long time with a lot of loose dogs around....never saw a dog fight in that whole time, nor aggression toward other dogs or humans. The only aggressive dogs I saw were ones that were "trained"....kind of makes you go "huh" about all the hype here.

Ahhh. Pretty simple reason for that.

The aggresive dogs are the ones that belong to a family, or pack. They are the ones that control the food. They are aggressive to make sure that their pack is taken care of first.

The loose dogs, are very submissive and not members of a pack. They shy away from confrontation, because they do not have the support of a pack, and are content to take the leftover scraps, in order to survive.

I have seen feral dogs form into packs, as a matter of their own survival. This is happening more and more in inner cities.