This is a placeholder text
Group text
by GSDguy08 on 02 February 2011 - 18:02
Mindhunt, I'm moving to another city next month. I was told with the weight limit that it's because smaller dogs won't cause any many problems or make messes as big as a big dog.....which is funny because the majority of nut cake dogs I see are SMALL, 15 lbs and under. Those are the dogs people baby so much that they develop more issues than Sports Illustrated. The town I'm going to be living in I could not find one apartment that allows Pit Bulls either. Most of the restrictions there are Pit Bulls, Akitas, Rotties, and any other Bull breed. Thankfully Huskies are okay there. A lot of the places, houses and apartments that I looked at renting have 25 lb weight limits for the dogs.....which to me is stupid, the Husky going with me could pass for a therapy dog. And he's very well mannered in the house as well.
by Sangreinu on 02 February 2011 - 19:02
.... I wonder how many small dog owners would be S.O.L if they based these dog bans on individual dog temperment instead of size or breed...
Is there some weird complication that prevents these dog phobic places for permitting dogs based on merit or at least making exceptions for them. Meaning they only accept (or at least allow) dogs who have proven themselves well behaved by means of a CGC or therapy dog title etc. The CGC test is only 11 dollars a truly small fee considering all the other possible dog costs. As a plus it ensures that people are actually working with their dogs versus leaving them to rot in a yard or crate sans interaction.
I don't think it's the best case senario... but it has to be better than these knee-jerk idiot laws that pop up. One dog jumps on a mailman so lets make it mandatory that all dogs must be tethered in their own yard??? What next a law that mandates that all dogs that fit whatever crap criteria must be muzzled at all times when not eating? Or lets make them all wear a special harness that only allows there front legs to move only so far before pulling on their back legs that'll keep those nasty buggers from jumping.
I just think it's ridiculous to be penalize someone who has a perfectly behaved large dog while an 8 pound ankle biting, furniture shredding terror that pee's everywhere is A-ok.
Is there something that makes this a retarded or impractical idea?
Is there some weird complication that prevents these dog phobic places for permitting dogs based on merit or at least making exceptions for them. Meaning they only accept (or at least allow) dogs who have proven themselves well behaved by means of a CGC or therapy dog title etc. The CGC test is only 11 dollars a truly small fee considering all the other possible dog costs. As a plus it ensures that people are actually working with their dogs versus leaving them to rot in a yard or crate sans interaction.
I don't think it's the best case senario... but it has to be better than these knee-jerk idiot laws that pop up. One dog jumps on a mailman so lets make it mandatory that all dogs must be tethered in their own yard??? What next a law that mandates that all dogs that fit whatever crap criteria must be muzzled at all times when not eating? Or lets make them all wear a special harness that only allows there front legs to move only so far before pulling on their back legs that'll keep those nasty buggers from jumping.
I just think it's ridiculous to be penalize someone who has a perfectly behaved large dog while an 8 pound ankle biting, furniture shredding terror that pee's everywhere is A-ok.
Is there something that makes this a retarded or impractical idea?
by nonacona60 on 02 February 2011 - 20:02
Keith,
In my original post, I meant that if a person would allow their dog to run loose, not on a leash outside a contained area, that is irresponsible on the owners part.. Obviously an owner that trains his dog is not irresponsible. So for anyone to post anything insinuating I meant hunting dogs, police dogs or herding dogs, should be on a leash while doing what they were trained for, was really someone trying to twist the meaning of my post...Common sense should have made that clear..
However, I do still believe that no one can be 100% positive that they can control their dog 100% of the time..If a dog gets in the "ZONE" whatever their zone may be, that chance alway exist that they may not respond to the owners command, correction or recall....NO DOG IS GUARANTEED to be 100%...There are no 100% guarantees in life, and if anyone thinks there is, more power to you...JMO...
In my original post, I meant that if a person would allow their dog to run loose, not on a leash outside a contained area, that is irresponsible on the owners part.. Obviously an owner that trains his dog is not irresponsible. So for anyone to post anything insinuating I meant hunting dogs, police dogs or herding dogs, should be on a leash while doing what they were trained for, was really someone trying to twist the meaning of my post...Common sense should have made that clear..
However, I do still believe that no one can be 100% positive that they can control their dog 100% of the time..If a dog gets in the "ZONE" whatever their zone may be, that chance alway exist that they may not respond to the owners command, correction or recall....NO DOG IS GUARANTEED to be 100%...There are no 100% guarantees in life, and if anyone thinks there is, more power to you...JMO...
by ggturner on 02 February 2011 - 20:02
I agree with Sangreinu about those ankle biting dogs that people don't control! One of my neighbors has 3 teacup chihuahuas that run our fence 2-3 times a day (off leash of course and we have a leash law). My gsds hate those dogs. Heaven help us if one of my dogs escapes and harms or kills one of my neighbor's dogs!
by Keith Grossman on 02 February 2011 - 22:02
"In my original post, I meant that if a person would allow their dog to run loose, not on a leash outside a contained area, that is irresponsible on the owners part.. Obviously an owner that trains his dog is not irresponsible. So for anyone to post anything insinuating I meant hunting dogs, police dogs or herding dogs, should be on a leash while doing what they were trained for, was really someone trying to twist the meaning of my post...Common sense should have made that clear..."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I fail to make the distinction between a dog that has been trained to hunt, act in a service role or herd and one that has been trained to come when called. Either the handler has control of the dog or he/she does not. In the latter case, the dog will eventually find himself without a leash and it's probably only a matter of time before he bolts out of an open door and ends up in one of the situations you describe anyway...with his 'responsible' owner left with no way to prevent it.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I fail to make the distinction between a dog that has been trained to hunt, act in a service role or herd and one that has been trained to come when called. Either the handler has control of the dog or he/she does not. In the latter case, the dog will eventually find himself without a leash and it's probably only a matter of time before he bolts out of an open door and ends up in one of the situations you describe anyway...with his 'responsible' owner left with no way to prevent it.
by nonacona60 on 02 February 2011 - 22:02
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because I fail to make the distinction between a dog that has been trained to hunt, act in a service role or herd and one that has been trained to come when called.
Finally, an admission its ok to disagree...
I'll just leave it at that...
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top