3 ms·
A simple DNA test can decide whether a dog "is" (percentage wise) a breed. A dog that's 30% pit decidedly has the characteristics of a dangerous breed. 5%, prob
by bastawhiz 2y ago
A simple DNA test can decide whether a dog "is" (percentage wise) a breed. A dog that's 30% pit decidedly has the characteristics of a dangerous breed. 5%, probably not.
The goal isn't to be perfect, it's to make ownership complexity reflect the risk. It's inviable to outlaw a breed altogether at this point. If folks don't buy dangerous dogs because they're expensive to own, the market dries up and the breeders stop breeding.
- major505 2y agobut here it is. dangerous dogs are a relative term. I saw this before. with dobermans, then rotwailers... I prefer people to be free to get whatever dog they want, as long as they accept the responsability for it. I have a big dog, a mixed race with more than 40kg. Shes swweet, but when out the house shes always with a chocke colar, because you never know how a dog can react in new situations. This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. I would also agree to ban big dogs from dog parks. Because theres always fights in dog parks.
- bastawhiz 2y ago> This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. Wearing a choke collar isn't a fix in the slightest. Dogs can dig, they can bust out windows, they can slip out the door. Hell, they can rip their leash out of your hands. My uncle's dog pulled my grandmother down some concrete steps, resulting in a hospital stay. Taking responsibility is paying a real, material cost up front when you get the dog and being held responsible for taking the necessary precautions (e.g., by your insurance company). If you want a dog that's risky, taking responsibility should be a sobering ongoing burden that's non-optional. If you don't want that burden, pick a smaller dog.