What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression?

There are dogs that people own that would attempt to kill or severely injure a person if they were given any opportunity. Dogs could be easily tested for that characteristic. Even secured in a back yard or house, there is no way to be 100% sure that the…

    What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression?

    There are dogs that people own that would attempt to kill or severely injure a person if they were given any opportunity. Dogs could be easily tested for that characteristic. Even secured in a back yard or house, there is no way to be 100% sure that the…...
    Dogs Training Discussions : What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression?...

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression?

      What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression? Dogs Training Discussions
      There are dogs that people own that would attempt to kill or severely injure a person if they were given any opportunity. Dogs could be easily tested for that characteristic. Even secured in a back yard or house, there is no way to be 100% sure that the dogs will not get loose or that someone may mistakenly enter the yard or house. I believe those dogs should be put down.

      What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression?

      What do you think of this law. All owners of large dogs must have their dog tested for aggression? Dogs Training Discussions
    • If a dog is going to be aggressive you will know, I don't think you should have to go through any tests or what all. If it attempts or DOES hurt somebody then it should be put down, I agree but this is my opinion.:)

    • I would have a problem with that depending on WHO administers the test, and what form it takes. Most GSDs fail the standard temperament tests most shelters give all incoming dogs. This does not mean all these dogs are aggressive, it means the tests are flawed. I have no problem with a TRULY out-of-control human-aggressive dog being put down. But I DO have a problem with well-meaning but clueless people giving tests that will give a result of "aggressive" where none really exists.

    • I think this is a stupid law... and if there is to be a law like this... it shouldn't be just big dogs that get tested, the small ones should be too.. I know a lot of little mean dogs, more than any big dogs... but i don't agree with this law at all anyway.

    • Since it isn't a law I won't give it a second thought once I finish writing this answerwhat it sounds like to me is that someone had a nightmare last night which included this ridiculous imaginative law and is now wondering if it was a good idea.So with that said ..I don't think anything about it as it would never happen.BTW what do you consider a large dog .. something that won't fit into a bread box

    • I have a Belgian Malinois, she acts like she will eat the glass out of the windows if you walk past our house. She is very territorial and protective. She will also lay on the couch and have our cat come right up to her face, snuggle with her, clean her ears, sleep across her body. She would absolutely fail any standardized test for aggression. However, she is the most loving dog I could ever imagine. I also have 2 labs that are just insane lovers & fetchers. But if they were excited enough to see a person, I'm not sure they would pass either.I think it's ridiculous to judge solely by a test on an animal a person may have never met before. Or better yet a person an animal has never met before. My Belgian will take to anyone we tell her is ok to be in her house (notice I say HER house). However, to take her to the vet, I muzzle her. I know she doesn't trust or like people she has never met.

    • Good thing your beliefs don't countBeing ignorant on dog behaviors does not make it a reason to think that such a law should exist.What dogs are you referring too? You must have a specific breed you are targeting or you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place.

    • Its good in theory but it wouldnt work. Like another poster said, most people have no clue what actually constitutes aggression. And what form would this test take? You cant torment a dog and expect it not to bite yet these are the circumstances in which so many dog DO bite. People allow their kids to maul their hot, tired and fed up dog and then when the dog has enough and goes for them, its all the dogs fault. A simple test could not be tailored for individual breeds, circumstances and clueless owners. And it isnt just large dogs. What about that Chihuahua that killed the two year old baby? Who would perform the test? What about the dogs who are just dog aggressive or bite out of fear because humans have horribly abused them? At what age do you test the dogs? Before or after they have had actual experience of the world? When they are puppies? During adolescence when so many problems crop up? Adulthood when they have outgrown many problems?There are just too many factors for this law to work. I do think that all owners of certain bully or guarding breeds should have to pass an ownership test to screen for responsibility and pure idiocy. And maybe a CGC certificate.

    • Well there are a few problems with that, like what exactly are you counting as aggression? On who's count is aggression being measured? What are the levels of aggression? Are there different levels of aggression? Is being protective of it's family aggressive? If a shy dog is backed into a corner and snaps is that aggression? Saying that you can test for a specific characteristic in a dog is like saying you can do the same for a human. You can make general observations about a family or breed, But each animal is an individual. Each will act differently and react differently. Then you have to factor in environmental and human factors. I'm pretty sure you can't just test for a specific characteristic and call it a done deal. You could wipe out entire breeds doing that. There are specific breeds that have been bred to be more aggressive in certain situations, drawing on their instincts.I have a great pyrenees who is strictly a live stock dog. She protects her herd at all costs. Even her Life. If someone tries to harm or steal some of my livestock, I sure as much hope she's gong to be aggressive. That's her job, it why her breed is used, that is her life. And perhaps the most important thing is this, I get that the idea of this is to eliminate the dogs that strictly want to attack. But do you really think the owners of those kinds of dogs don't already know that about their dogs? You think dogs fighters are going to follow this law, even though they are clearly breaking one already? There would still be a black market for the kinds of dogs that you are suggesting would be eliminated.

    • I think that's a pretty idiotic and asinine test that would probably be administered by fools who couldn't find the right end of the dog if it bit them in the @$$Dog bites are NOT such an endemic that it's a problem. Why don't we focus more on things that actually KILL people on a regular basis? Automobiles driven by idiots that shouldn't have a license? Guns owned by idiots that shouldn't own guns? These things kill TENS of THOUSANDS of Americans every year, while only 30 Americans or so are killed by guns. 30 people out of 6,000,000 people is NOT a problem.Hell, DOUBLE that number is killed by LIGHTNING every year! So why don't we work on banning people from going outside in the rain instead, that seems like it would do a lot more good then wasting BILLIONS on euthanizing dogs. (Average estimate is roughly 60 people killed a year by lightning in the US)

    • sounds really dumb to me. you don't mistakenly walk into anyones yard or home. It's called tresspassing and breaking and entering, both are crimes and you get what you diserve.

    • How does someone "mistakenly" enter someone else's house or yard?? Our yard's gates are padlocked and there's an 8 foot high fence around the yard. No one can mistakenly enter our yard. We also put up "Beware of Dog" signs, not because they're mean, but it lets people know that there are dogs on the property, simple as that.

    • What I think is that is that it is an ill conceived idea that thankfully will never become law.First what aggression are you referring to?Social aggression? Civil aggression?Natural predator animal aggression?A predisposition to exhibit fearful behavior when exposed to specific stimulus?Your law presupposes that there are "good"&" bad" genetic temperaments with no shades of grey in between which is black & white, & that is not the case.Only dogs with severely unsound genetic temperaments that would have been born with abnormally low thresholds & high levels of reactivity to trigger stimulus, would pose a real threat to humans in which case there would be only one responsible course of action.I do however agree with temperament testing for breeding stock [ZTP is an example]. The dog is expected to work under the direction of its owner while being exposed to a variety of everyday situations to gauge its reaction & how quickly it recovers if startled.