That's cool. As long as they outlaw irresponsible owners and grandmothers who leave young children outside, unsupervised, right? The same way cars are deadly weapons when used incorrectly, so are strong animals with teeth. My cousin fell down the steps once and broke his leg when he wasn't be supervised - should they be forced to put in a ramp and ban stairs? Where is ANYONE'S SENSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??? If anyone has any ideas, besides an internet petition, I am all ears. this craziness has to be stopped. Is anyone doing anything?

I think it is just so stupid to ban certain breeds of dogs just because some irresponsible people decided to raise a vicious dog. What do you think is going to happen now that they banned these breeds of dogs. The same stupid people are going to find a new breed of dog to raise to be vicious, it is never going to end until the owners are stopped, not the breed of dogs. Pretty soon we will not be able to own any large dogs because of stupid pet owners. Why punish dogs for how they were raised? Dogs are not born vivious because of their breed, it is people who choose to make their dogs vicious. That is the true problem.

From reading the news accounts, this situation is clearly not an animal problem. It is a people problem. You can get rid of all the dogs, but you will still have the same irresponsible people. While there is no animal control officer, I assume there is a means of enforcement for rabies vaccine compliance. Is there no county control? There are a number of other options that could be considered by the city leaders: Ban dog chaining; enact a leash law; make micro chipping mandatory for all dogs; make it mandatory for all dogs to be kept indoors; ban ownership of a vicious dog; limit the number of dogs per household except by permit; serious violators can be fined and banned from dog ownership.

It's just common sense, you cannot fix the animal problem without fixing the source of the problem.

Well, I'll never go to that town. The council is purely ignorant. Don't ban the poor, innocent dogs, ban the people who teach them to be that way.

The truth of the matter is, some dogs require more skilled owners than other dogs. The biggest natural determinate on a dog's tempermant is their breed. There are some very skilled and responsible owners who could take a very difficult dog and turn it into the biggest sweatheart in the world. But let's face it, MANY owners are not skilled enough to handle even a moderately challenging breed, such as a Border Collie. There are far too many people who just go out, grab the cutest puppy they can find so that their kid has a dog, because "kids should have a dog growing up". They know nothing about dogs or the breed that they are getting, and they think all breeds are basically the same. It's just another toy for their child.

The fact of the matter is that there are breeds that should only be owned by experienced and skilled dog owners. This includes the breeds that were specifically developed to be fighting dogs, such as Chows. Can a chow be a good pet? Absolutely. I believe any dog can be a good pet if you have a knowledgeable and responsible owner. But you can get away with far more owner ignorance raising a Cocker Spaniel than a Chow and if someone is a first-time dog owner, I would encourage them to get a Golden Retriever over a Pitbull. Save the pitbull after they have learned more about raising dogs - otherwise they run a higher risk of doing themselves, their community and the dog a disservice by creating a dangerous dog.

The article states that the law provides an exception for all dogs that pass the Canine Good Citizenship Test - this is a test that is more about the owner than the dog. It is extremely easy to pass and extremely inexpensive. The only requirement is basic good manners from the dog (not obedience) and a pledge by the owner to be responsible. The program actually teaches the owners how to be responsible pet owners and has very little to do with the dog at all. Personally, I wouldn't mind if every pet owner was required to pass the Canine Good Citizenship Test in order to own any breed. There are far too many dogs being neglected and abused for no other reason than their owners don't know how to be responsible owners. The Canine Good Citizenship Test would at least cure the ignorance of the owners so that they could no longer say "I didn't know better".

The test requires 10 things:
1. Accept a friendly stranger. (Allow a friendly stranger to approach or walk by.)
2. Accept petting.
3. Owner must know how to groom their pet.
4. Owner must demonstrate that they can control the dog on a leash.
5. Owner must be able to walk the dog through a crowd.
6. Sit and short stay.
7. Come when called.
8. Don't attack other dogs.
9. Dog won't act aggressively towards distractions (a chair falling over, dropping of a cane, a wheelchair going near the dog)
10. The dog will be able to stay with a trusted friend if needed without becoming aggressive.

Don't you think that if a dog and owner cannot do these 10 simple things that the owner shouldn't have dogs? Or, at the very least, a very low-maintanence dog?

Hi all,
I have heard of and been adverse to the 'Pit Bull' breed for the majority of my life. What troubles me about the perspective of those individuals offended by legislation aimed at protecting humans and other species against dangerous or vicious dogs is that they presume vicious dog attacks are predictable. The evidence is out there which verifies that most dog attacks, are not 'provoked'. Read what ANIMAL PEOPLE has to say about vicious breeds take a look at dogbite.org. Even if a dog could pass a 'good citizen' test there is no guarantee that the animal, especially a pit bull,would not at some time evidence a bad 'moment'. Pit bulls don't just bit they maul and maime. In addition to licensing, liability insurance, micro chipping, posting warning signs, the property owners of 'vicious breeds' should be mandated to have a 6ft.tall fence with a locking gate and a dog pen with a roof and floor to confine the animal(s) when not confined to their homes. I live in a community with a dangerous dog ordinance and with a dog warden who is not a friend of the ordinance. My next door neighbor's boyfriend has within the past year brought first one now a second pit bull to live at her home. To date they have not complied with the fencing requirement. While the licensing and liability issue has allegedly been taken care of this household ties the dogs in their backyard with plastic cord that is equivalent in weight to laundry line. Rather than posting signs warning about the animals, as required by the city ordininace, the homeowner has placed a No Trespassing sign in their living room window. Poor dogs?

Marquita