I'm curious why you think licensing has anything to do with how aggressive an animal will be?

It indicates both levels of responsibility and care for the animal. Such owners tend to take their ownership duties more seriously than those who don't license their dogs. Licensing also carries with it vaccination requirements and usually incentives to spay/neuter a dog. "Fixed" dogs are far less likely to bite/maul a human.

I'm curious to know why you think there is a constitutional right for letting dogs to use public facilities; why children should be required to learn how to deal with dogs; why everyone should be required to learn how to live with dogs; and why people without dogs are stupid.

Are you a complete blithering idiot? Who said people who don't own dogs are stupid? I wrote that it is prudent for people to teach their kids how to behave around dogs.

As for public places...uhhmmm, they are public places? As for children, they often like dogs and want to pet them. As such teaching them how to do it safely is, again, prudent. Feel free not to do it with your children, but then you should make sure they don't approach my dogs or anybody elses dogs as your child is ignorant of how to do it safely. Think of the dogs as swimming pools, you wouldn't let your untrained child go near one would you?

If you want to have a dog or a horse or an elephant, keep it at home. You don't have a constitutional right to impose a cost to other people.

There is no cost if you control your children. Really, this is just stupid. I follow the leash laws, train my dogs, and there is literally zero threat to you or anybody else when we go for a walk. If on the other hand you are a bad parent, let your child run around unsupervised, and he/she approaches my dogs and I can't stop him/her, and he/she provokes my dogs, then the responsibility is on you as a bad parent. See here is the solution, I'll continue controlling my dogs, you control your children. Keep and eye on them and if they run off towards my dogs, then you should stop them. Failing that, I'll do my best to stop them, but it is asking a bit much for me to also be the parent of your child and in control of my dogs.

And children need to know many other things before being trained in how to be protected from animals.

Rubbish. I was at the pet store the other day with my American Pit Bull Terrier, and in line in front of me were a boy and girl, maybe 2 and 3 years of age. The girl saw my dog and then looked at me and asked if she could pet my dog. I was quite impressed with her parents in that they had taught her well. I knew my dog was ultra-friendly, and especially towards children so I gave her permission.

Steve didn't say that New Bedford's residents were stupid. He said that, except for one, they lack a brain (please don't tell me he referred to government officials; all officials are part of the community).

Of for God's sake Edgardo. You really should stop trying so hard to be so damn dense at times. I was being sarcastic because the typical response by local, and even State governments is to ban breeds not bad dogs. It is a ham-fisted approach that simply does not work, as has been shown time again.

If anything the people of New Beford also deserve a share in the credit. They either passed this ordinance or selected officials who put this ordinance in place. Either way it reflects well on them.

Even worse, if you read again what he wrote, you can see that he thinks we are very stupid and thus why we need to be trained in how dogs behave and how we should protect ourselves from dogs.

No, there is a difference between ignorance and stupid. Ignorance about dogs is rampant. People base their views on information that is either grossly distorted or even outright false. The "locking jaw" myth for American Pit Bull Terriers is one. Then there is the chewing with their back teeth while holding with the front ones. Then there is the view that a dog bred to fight other dogs and animals must necessarily be human aggressive also. All three of these are false, but are widely held beliefs.

And all the protection you need is to cure yourself of ignorance. It is like saying, "I shouldn't have to know the rules for driving on the roads. Other people should merely get out of my way." A rather arrogant view. And by the way, congratulations. Upon reading my post, you know enough to be quite safe around dogs, even strays that are off leash. You have just completed a rudimentary course of dog safety.

In sum, if you want to have a dog, keep it at home.

No. That is actually a bad thing. I guess you didn't read the part about how dogs kept in the backyard are more likely to be dangerous than dogs that are well socialized. Keeping a dog away from other people will lead to more dogs being fear-aggressive.

Tracy

It would be a really nice world if everyone kept their pets, if not at home (I know I walk my dog every night, and both of us love it), at least well trained. It would also be nice if people didn't speed in school zones and residential areas, or smoke in public places, or if my kids didn't have to be wary of people they don't know. But I prefer to teach my children to deal with the world the way it is, rather than the way I think it should be.

Well said, well said. I couldn't agree more.

I'll also make an analogy. Edgardo's view is that he shouldn't have to teach his kids to look both ways before crossing the street. That it is solely the responsibility of the driver to be aware of where Edgardo's children are at all times. While this would be great if possible, drivers can't see through solid objects like parked cars, trees, or other obstructions that a child could dart out from behind into the path of the on-coming car. Teaching one's child basic safety in crossing the street is pretty much exactly the same in regards to dogs.

I am from a more rural area, so my kids are taught to apply this to all animals they might come across. Anything can be dangerous when frightened or backed into a corner. I'm careful, I don't want them to be afraid of animals, so I explain that it's frightened and defending itself. I don't want my kids to go through life afraid of everything, I just want them to be smart about safety. For people more used to city life, a stray dog is probably the worst they'll get, but it should be treated accordingly. I view this as part of basic safety education, taught at the same time as I taught my young children that they must hold my hand at all times when near a road or parking lot, and to stay away from strangers.

It would be a really nice world if everyone kept their pets, if not at home (I know I walk my dog every night, and both of us love it), at least well trained. It would also be nice if people didn't speed in school zones and residential areas, or smoke in public places, or if my kids didn't have to be wary of people they don't know. But I prefer to teach my children to deal with the world the way it is, rather than the way I think it should be.

To Egardo:

Children NEED to learn how to behave around dogs to avoid injury and to instill respect for dogs. Not only does this instill empathy for other animals we share our lives with (a very important human quality), it makes for safer children and dogs.

If a human makes the conscious choice to bring another species into their life, they SHOULD educate themselves properly - in regards to their ability to care for the dog properly, in regards to which breed truly fits their abilities and lifestyle, in regards to the dog's ability to (not) make rational, moral or ethical decisions on it's own... etc.

The writer did not say that people without dogs are stupid... perhaps, though, you need a reading comprehension refresher.

Now I don't have anything against dogs. But I don't have anything for them either. They're just animals, and animals can be classified as useful (horses), tasty (cows), or other adjectives that describe their utility...