I think owning dogs you physically can't restrain should be illegal/restricted

[u/Artistic-Usual7151]

I think it's extremely irresponsible and should even be illegal to own a dog you physically can't restrain especially if you have children or live in an area near children. The danger these dogs can cause is extreme serious injuries and the possibility of death to another person isn't worth this freedom. I think larger dogs should require a permit and professional training. If you want a "guard dog" it should be a process more similar to getting a gun, I think both the owner and the dog need proper training before the dog should be able to be owned by the average person along with a background check just to be sure they have a history of being a responsible human being.

I am very aware that little dogs tend to bite more, but a little dog that attacks you or someone else you can throw them off or restrain them significantly easier than you can a pit bull. I think there is a significant difference between drawing some blood and being capable of taking limbs off and causing permanent disfigurement or death

If you can't physically stop that dog's attack if it lashes out, you have no business owning one in the first place. I don't care that your dog is a "gentle giant" it only takes one instance for something bad to happen. The average person doesn't need a Cane Corso or a Mastiff I think the risk is not worth "your freedom" to do whatever and take whatever risk you want especially when it puts non-consenting people at risk. I don't hate dogs or anything but I do see a massive creature with large teeth and a strong bite force as inherently dangerous in the event that it becomes reactive, angry, or irritated. At the end of the day they are animals and will act like animals to some extent.

[u/PainterLonely1313]

That'll work out well for paralyzed people with service dogs.

[u/cola-cats → u/PainterLonely1313]

I think its obvious OP isnt talking about medical service dogs, which are (typically) bred for temperament and heavily trained. Very different from a 5ft 100lbs woman getting a german shepherd in a whim, for example.

[u/Hudson9700 → u/PainterLonely1313]

I think larger dogs should require a permit and professional training

I can tell you didn't read his post. Good thing service dogs have both!

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/Hudson9700]

Service animals are professionally trained if they weren't professionally trained they are not service animals and disabled people or their caregivers who are also responsible for them are taught how to handle these animals. This is just intentionally ignorant at this point.

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

In the US, where most service animals live, they do not have to be professionally trained. By law, you are allowed to train your own service dog. This keeps service dogs accessible for people who can't afford a dog that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

What they do have to be is under control at all times (in public; generally they have "off" time to rest and be a dog at home or at the dog park, etc.), and trained to perform a specific, disability-related task.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

So then what about experienced dog owners who professionally train their large dogs? Are those people still banned from having dogs that you think are too large?

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

If you are capable of professionally training your dog you should be able to pass the CCPDT or CPDT-KA test. If you can't then maybe you aren't as capable as you want to believe you are.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

Many good trainers aren't certified, and many certified trainers aren't good. And why does every dog owner need to be certified? I took my dog to classes taught by professional trainers because I recognize that my training knowledge has its limits. That doesn't make me any less of a responsible dog owner than someone who's certified.

I'm sure if my dog really really wanted something he could've gotten away from me. He wasn't a massive dog (~50 lbs), but I'm not a very large person and I'm disabled. My dog wasn't a service dog but I never got into a situation where he posed a danger to other people or animals because he was well-trained. Dogs are also very strong, and a determined medium/large dog could probably get away from most people if they wanted to. Should I be banned from owning any dog bigger than 20 pounds because they could theoretically get away from me even though my dogs have always been well trained?

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

No you shouldn't be allowed to own a dog you can't control that you don't need. Laws should be based on what is best for the majority of people not just what individuals want. A large dog is inherently dangerous even if it hasn't done anything particularly because that's the nature of a large animal. You can be the best owner in the world and the dog can still be a threat which is why ideally the world would restrict dogs down to what is needed by society and in the cases where it isn't, the dogs would require both intense training and the ability to be physically restrained. If you can't do both and you don't need the dog, you simply shouldn't have the dog.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

So what's your proposal? We euthanize all the large dogs that are already sitting in shelters because they're too big for you?

Your policy would ban anyone except professional weightlifters from ever owning a livestock guarding dog. And those dogs are essential on farms.

My dog would've been euthanized if I hadn't adopted him. And I have a preference for medium-large breeds for my own reasons. Why should I be denied from owning a perfectly safe and well-trained dog just because you think that dog is a threat? By your logic, all dogs should be preemptively muzzled and never allowed around children in case they suddenly decide to become aggressive.

Arbitrarily banning people from owning large dogs isn't going to fix the problems caused by bad dog ownership. If you want to actually make dogs safer, advocate for better education of dog owners.

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

Or maybe you don't have $3600 and two years to spend getting a certification.

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/PainterLonely1313]

The cost range in total is between $525 to $825 and you renew it for $220 every 3 years if you can't manage to save up that low amount of money than perhaps you actually afford a dog at all because vet bills are far more expensive. My mother's dog tore her acl and that surgery was $11,000 out of pocket so if you don't have any money put aside in case something happens in general you simply don't have enough money for a dog.

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

So again, where do disabled people with service dogs fit into your paradigm?

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/PainterLonely1313]

Government training programs for those dogs should be the mandate with no out-of-pocket cost but still, I highly doubt a dog "trained" by a non-professional is capable of being a proper guide dog, allergen tester, or a medical alert dog that sounds like a gamble with a persons safety. Emotional support dogs are bs and need to stop being accepted entirely

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

ESAs aren't service dogs; I'm not talking about them.

The problem with requiring "government training" for service dogs is that they now have to be taxpayer funded, and service dogs often serve very niche needs (like cardiac alert dogs, for instance) that would not be economical to train for, because many dogs simply can't do it even if they're bred for it and even if they have the ability, because they have to have the ability and be, by law, essentially bomb-proof in public.

Not to mention, a lot of people train their existing dog who they notice alerting when they have a medical event. 

I'm thinking you don't know very much about service dogs. I'm not an expert, but I do understand that there are good reasons that service dogs are regulated but not licensed.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

Who is going to fund these programs?

You believing that service dogs that aren't professionally trained aren't real service dogs speaks volumes about your understanding of dog training and ownership. Fuck off with your ableism and ignorance.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Artistic-Usual7151]

So I looked up the CCPDT guidelines. They don't even prohibit the use of aversives like prong collars and ecollars. Is this really the standard you want to hold dog trainers to?

[u/Artistic-Usual7151 → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Prong collars and ecollars are extremely good tools when used correctly and do not hurt the dog but instead cause discomfort. It's only bad when used incorrectly

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Hudson9700]

Yeah, I have no patience for people who make a clear, unequivocal statement in their title and then equivocate it into oblivion in the body. If you actually mean "irresponsible people who don't intend on training their dogs at all shouldn't get dogs they can't physically restrain", say that.

[u/Hudson9700 → u/PainterLonely1313]

Title:

I think owning dogs you physically can't restrain should be illegal/restricted

illegal/restricted

restricted

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Hudson9700]

I don't see anything in OP's post about service dogs. In fact, they quite explicitly say:

If you can't physically stop that dog's attack if it lashes out, you have no business owning one in the first place. I don't care that your dog is a "gentle giant" it only takes one instance for something bad to happen.

And

I think it's extremely irresponsible and should even be illegal to own a dog you physically can't restrain especially if you have children or live in an area near children. The danger these dogs can cause is extreme serious injuries and the possibility of death to another person isn't worth this freedom. I think larger dogs should require a permit and professional training.

Service dogs, for good reason, do not require professional training and therefore fall under none of OP's exceptions or equivocations.

[u/Jamie_1318 → u/PainterLonely1313]

Service dogs are restricted. Anybody can't just get one. They are licensed and regulated.

Just because the owner isn't the one restraining them doesn't mean the use/ownership of the dog isn't restricted.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/Jamie_1318]

That's not true in the US. Literally anyone can claim their dog is a service dog. As long as it's well-behaved in public and the owner can answer the two questions you're allowed to ask service dog owners, you cannot challenge someone on whether their service dog is real or ask for any kind of documentation proving it.

Also, service dog owners have run into issues with breed bans because of their service dogs. Which is illegal under the ADA but it still happens. So you can't just assume that service dogs will be exempted from whatever bullshit policies OP wants to put into place.

[u/Jamie_1318 → u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305]

Where I live you can be asked to prove your need for the animal.

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Jamie_1318]

What are the regulations for this, specifically? 

[u/Jamie_1318 → u/PainterLonely1313]

```
Documentation and certification

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the AODA, service animals do not need to have certificates or identity cards.

However, you may be asked to provide acceptable documentation. This includes:

• documentation from a regulated health professional
• an identification card from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General for people who are blind and use a guide dog

```

[u/PainterLonely1313 → u/Jamie_1318]

Incorrect in the US.

Anyone can train their own service dog. The two basic rules are:

1. They must be under control and on task at any time they are functioning as a service dog. (So they can't be jumping around, in a purse, or getting pats from other people.)

2. They must have a definable task they are trained to do (detect seizures, guide a blind person, provide comfort during a PTSD flashback).