Dangerous Dog Registry - Your Opinions On This?

[elizabethann]

From National Public Radio:

More on Dangerous Dogs
Just a quick post to follow up on the show we did last week on dogfighting, for which I wrote this post in defense of pit bulls and other breeds maligned for being aggressive. The state of Virginia has just launched its Dangerous Dogs Registry, a searchable database, much like ones that list sex offenders, that gives photos and addresses of dogs that "have attacked a person or an animal, and that a judge has decided could cause injury again," according to the New York Times. It's an interesting idea... do you think it's just a sensible public service, or could a registry like this feed the fire of negative publicity about some breeds?

Here is the link to the searchable database:
http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_dd/public/cgi-bin/public.cgi

[Freedom]

I saw this same "blurb" in our newspaper this morning. Sigh.

I think it has become a necessary step. But I also firmly believe it is the owners not the dogs. Ultimately we need to address the root of the problem. Insist that dog owners maintain their pets properly. Maybe that means taking a test before getting one, I don't know. Just my thoughts.

[smokey the elder]

How about an "Owners of Dogs who have been fighting" registry?

[rutylr]

It should be the owners who house dangerous dogs registery.
I've owned pits and Rotts and have never had one that would bite.

[clara4457]

This is the first time I've seen something that at least targets the action rather than generalized "dangerous breed" legislation.

While I agree many times it is the owner's that are the cause of the aggression, I also think that some dogs (not breeds - individual dogs), can be snarky with people outside of their immediate family. I've known several owners that have done everything they could to deal with aggression issues with their dogs, but it hasn't always been 100% effective. I don't know if it is bad breeding or personality quirks, but not all dogs can be 100% trusted with strangers. Many dogs have to be managed for their entire lives and not allowed access to people outside the immediate family.

At least this is a step in the right direction - punish the deed, not the breed.

[jackie]

I second that this is a step in the right direction.

[lizbud]

I think any registry should also include the names of the owners of these
dogs, not just info on the dog. Also, would it allow any way for owners who
take steps to insure future behavior by formal training, etc., to have the dog
removed from the list? I have a few other questions, but other than that, it
could be a good first step.

[Karen]

I think it should be a dangerous dogs AND owners database, as people are responsible, but dogs can also change hands, and the authorities should be notified if that happens as well. And bad owners are gonna probably still be bad owners even if they have a different dog.

[clara4457]

From National Public Radio:

It's an interesting idea... do you think it's just a sensible public service, or could a registry like this feed the fire of negative publicity about some breeds?

You know it might have the opposite effect rather than focusing negatively on a specific breed when the criteria is related only to some type of documented aggression. How many Chi's, Jack Russells, Cocker Spaniels, Poodles, etc. will also be on the list along with the pits, GSD's, Dobe's and Rotties?

I also agree that owners as well as dogs should be on the list. I also like the idea of including in the database if the owner's are working with a trainer, vet behaviorist or animal behaviorist to work on their dogs fear/aggression issue.

[crow_noir]

I see much good AND bad in this.

What stands out in my mind though is at least they didn't enact BSL.

Their registry is also much nicer than the MI sex offender registry in that the VA DDR lists in PLAIN English what the dog did to get on the list. (The one i looked at killed a cat.

I disagree with what they consider what constitutes a dangerous dog, but that's another subject. At least it IS up there for the public to decide.

[crow_noir]

For Those saying the owner's name should be on there also... It is.

[Freedom]

While I agree many times it is the owner's that are the cause of the aggression, I also think that some dogs (not breeds - individual dogs), can be snarky with people outside of their immediate family.

Our dog Princess was like that. We could walk her on leash and on the street you could come up and pet her. As we walked along chatting with you, we'd reach home and step into our yard. Now she felt she had to protect her property. She would lunge for your jugular! No fooling around on her part, you were trespassing (in her mind). Very deceptive. After the first couple times we realized and had a better hold on her. This was years ago when they pumped gas for you. We couldn't get gas with her in the car; she wouldn't allow the pump man to touch HER car. On vacations, we'd have to get her out on a leash and walk away while they did the pumping! It was also a problem as we took her camping with us. She'd decide the campground was friendly territory but don't set foot in our camp SITE! Oh man, that dog had us on our toes all her 16 years with us.

I also wasn't too sure about what they considered dangerous behaviour. Most PTer's understand that some breeds, and some individual dogs, have a high prey drive. And while I would hate for any dog to kill a cat, not sure that should make the list. But that is a separate issue to the registry idea itself.