Muzzle required in public

[suzzyq01]

So I thought I would get some opinions on this, as it seems that it will be a new "law/ordinance" in our city if it is voted on in two weeks.

The ordinance requires that all pit bulls that don't go through certified training programs must be on a leash and wearing a muzzle when not on their owner's property. Pit bulls also do not have to wear a muzzle when off their owner's property if they are in a secure enclosure, such as a dog crate. A pit bull is defined as any dog that is an American pit-bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or any dog of mixed breed displaying the majority of physical traits of any of the above breeds.

Here's the story if your interested in reading it..
Lowell City Council to bring pit-bull muzzle law to public hearing - Lowell Sun Online

Here is my take on it....IF I had a pitbull (or mix) I would go through training with it just as I have my other dogs. For the most part responsible dog owns try and right the wrongs. I think this will prevent people from just going out and buying a puppy or adopting a dog and that's it, not willing to put any work into gaining control of the dog.

Now the flip on this is the thugs located here may embrace this and walk down the street with their pitty on a thick chain (as I've seen them do it already) with a sporty pimped out muzzle on and it will make them look even more bad *ss!

I dunno, at least it's not like in Miami (Dade county) that doesn't allow pitty/mixes at all!

BSL - not cool...punish the people not the breed.

Thoughts.....

[Jax's Mom]

This one seems more reasonable than the one we have. Pit bulls are banned and the grandfathered ones must all be muzzled. There is no opportunity for training your dog here.

[ShenzisMom]

Problem is, what do you consider a ' certified training program ' and what, if any, proof must you carry at all times with an unmuzzled dog?

What about dogs that have issues with sudden environment changes? These dogs would fly through a training class after the inital shock. So can you really call them 'trained'.

What about multi-person homes? Where the dog follows one persons command readily, but looks at other people like they are playing? Should only the person who completes the training be allowed to walk muzzle free?

Lets face it everyone. Stricter leash laws would prevent many accidents. And I firmly believe in having to pass a test to own any animal, be it 5 pounds or 200 pounds. But a fair test. People who are knowledgable about keeping an intact animal would continue to do so, while people who breed without ethics or responsibilty would have to neuter the pets at a specific time. There would have to be some loopholes for people who actually know what they are doing...

[suzzyq01]

You raised some of the same questions I did. I would think....only my thought process....that the CGC would be the certification would be the lowest form of approved certification. I would also think that when the dog is registered with the city they would have to show proof that the dog was CGC certified and would get a special tag to go on their collar. This would provide instant identification that the dog is exempt from the law. Dog officers and police should be able to pull up the data base with the licence information and special exempt tag and verify it belongs to that dog. I would assume it would be like the police data base of arrested criminals with photos and such. It would mean building such data base. A frontal/side view photo of your dog would be required at time of registration.

Personally I feel like this should be for EVERY BREED. Not just Pitbills/mixes. Only because it spans across the board of what "bad dogs" are. Not breed based. I've never been attacked by a pitbull but I have been attacked by other breeds you never hear about. St. Bernard being one of them. So....It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Holmeshx2]

I really wish anyone that had anything to do with dogs (include the law makers making a dog law) would have to have a test to show their knowledge. We all know what a pain it is to have to rent with a GSD because of breed bans but one place we tried to rent at would not allow great danes because they considered them a "bully breed"

Really think far too many breeds are discriminated against because people are stupid. This law however does have flaws but does seem a lot more reasonable then a good portion of the laws that get passed. personally I love the thought of passing the mandatory muzzle unless the dog has been trained. Those that care will at least take a basic 6 week obedience course or if they have the dog out in public it will be muzzled and not able to bite someone elses pet causing that poor dog more emotional issues. Not perfect of course but would help some in the long run.

[Jax's Mom]

Originally Posted by Holmeshx2

I really wish anyone that had anything to do with dogs (include the law makers making a dog law) would have to have a test to show their knowledge.

People that have employable skills do what they're good at and don't become politicians... We're stuck with the leftovers to create our laws and run our lives LOL
...in China, every politician must be an engineer or doctor first.

[ShenzisMom]

We could always have an old fashioned riot to change that...

[Jax's Mom]

^stay tuned for my latest rant regarding that...

[ShenzisMom]

Looking forwards to it. Now on to our scheduled programming.

Who here would sign up for and attend a state/city/provincial sanctioned training facility with their dogs? What would make you say FORGET IT and walk out, to either have to find a different facility with (in your view) better training opportunities, or forever muzzle your dog?

[selzer]

Then go live in China.

Not too long ago, there was a rabies out break and they murdered thousands of pets there. Either you put your dog down, or they came and killed them in front of you. Just the place that I want to emulate when I am thinking about who should determine legislation about dogs.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog cull in China to fight rabies

2006 over 50,000 dogs murdered because three people died from rabies -- not ancient history. I think the engineers and the doctors flunked in this situation.

Anyway, this is a bad law in my opinion. We here on the net are very into responsible dog ownership, and training our dogs. No one more than me. I stress training over health, nutrition, bloodlines, pedigree, etc, etc, etc. I truly believe if people just trained their dogs, the whole shelter/rescue problem would go away. Oh, people will die, or circumstances would go sour, and dogs would still be given up, but the vast majority of dogs dumped would not be dumped if people would just train the dog, build that bond with them.

But I think FORCING people to do so is not ok. Supply/Demand, the cost and availability of training classes would become an issue. Standards would drop. Training classes would not be fun, they would be a serious business. And some of the people certified to give the test will turn slimey and pass dogs for a consideration.

People like my parents, who never set foot in a training class, own a large GSD who if truth be told would flunk the test in a couple of areas without any training, would be forced to muzzle their dog when they take him out -- if it was applied to all breeds.

Cujo is actually a great pet, and he is trained (by them) and very managable, without a muzzle. He is great with babies, and good with kids, and has not eaten any older children or dogs yet. Why muzzle him? It might unnecessarily increase his fear and make him more likely to be a nuisance. If my dad or I walk him he is leashed, as per the law.

Why would we think that dogs that currently run loose without a leash, where they are required, would be likely to have owners who suddenly follow a new law requiring a muzzle?

And what about these dogs the day after they get their CGC and little collar tag? When one goes to training classes, enjoys them, works with the dog, builds a bond, and takes their time, there is no reason a CGC test will be the end of training. But when the goal is a CGC so that you do not have to bother with muzzling the dog, there is no reason to ever darken the training facility again after you achieve it.

And I am sorry, but if you do zero with your dog after the CGC test, it is not going to remain well trained, good with dogs, good with people and a good canine citizen. Oh some will. I actually have to do very little in the area of training after the CGC, but I do take my time and get the foundation work done, then I get them through the CGC and RN, and then I usually give them a break before deciding whether to go further with them. And three months later after a minute or so, the dog pretty much falls in to what I want. But if ALL I ever did with the dog was a six or eight week CGC course, and managed to pass the test by whatever means -- slipping the dog a valium or bendryl or anti-anxiety meds before the test and stuffing my mouth with peppermint. What is to say that this dog will be any more worthy of being muzzle-less than my parents' 86 pound Cujo.

It will cost a lot of money to set it up and enforce it, and in my opinion, the government has better ways to spend tax dollars. Making laws that effect all dogs or certain breeds because of a handful of incidents per year, well, my opinion is to really go to town on the people who own the dogs that are causing the problems, and leave old people and their dogs alone. Cujo is almost six now, never had a lick of training, and hasn't mauled a paper boy or a toddler yet.

And Cujo, if necessary, would be taken by my older brother, maybe my younger brother, my older sister, and even possibly my younger sister and her husband who had feared the breed, but Cujo is winning him over. And of course I would take the dog if necessary, so in his case, lack of formal education is not an issue, my parents' handling of him has made him a dog that will not land in a shelter.

Maybe we should just make people pass 20 question multiple guess test specifically about who is at fault and liable if there is a situation involving a dog in order to get your dog license. For example:

1. A dog is off lead. The mail man is trying to deliver mail at the owner's residence. The dog bites the mailman on the leg. Who is at fault? A. The mailman. B. The dog. C. The owner of the dog.

2. In question number one who will be responsible to pay for the injuries? A. The mailman. B. The dog. C. The owner of the dog.

3. In question number one, criminal charges can be filed. A. True. B. False.

4. In question number one, the dog may be euthanized. A. True. B. False.

5. A large dog is being walked on lead and under control. A small dog on a flex lead runs into the path of the large dog snarling aggressively. The large dog grabs the small dog causing serious injury to the small dog. Who is at fault? A. The large dog. B. The small dog. C. The large dog owner. D. The small dog owner.

6. In question # 5, who will pay for the veterinarian bill? A. B. C. D.

etc.

If you cannot pass the very simple test about who is responsible, and what the consequences may be, then maybe you will need to go to remedial dog ownership class before you can get your dog license.