Dogs belong in rural exurbs, not in cities and inner ring burbs

[Anonymous]

I think it's cruel to both the dog and all of your neighbors to raise it in a city or subdivision on a tiny lot with basically no yard. The barking, lack of exercise, lack of sun, their paws on blazing hot sidewalks and pavement, only able to go outside a coupe of times a day to quickly go the bathroom (often after holding it in for a hours), and the poop and pee they leave everywhere in the city or on everyone else's small front yard.

[Anonymous]

Disagree. Yards don't exercise dogs, people exercise dogs. The cruelty you describe is owner inflicted, there are many dogs out there living their best lives in cities.

[Anonymous]

Not all dogs bark all the time. And just like people, dogs can hold their pee for hours. Also, tons of city folks with dogs take them on hour-long walks a couple times a day. Did you know there are dog parks in cities? There are.

[Anonymous]

they would likely be put down bc there are not enough people in the country to take care of all those dogs. Sometimes people in the country keep their dogs locked in cages underfed. You can't really make the claim that dogs are better off there. Maybe you should move there.

[Anonymous]

By those arguments people shouldn’t live in cities either! Not enough exercise, not enough nature, have to hold our pee while in meetings for hours at a time.

Dogs have evolved to be human companions. They need food and exercise and of course, but mostly they need companionship to be happy. That can happen anywhere.

They make doggy shoes for hot pavement.

[Anonymous]

Can we talk about huge dogs stuck in tiny apartments with them bored and barking non-stop that's more of an issue in cities OP?

Apartments should ALL be DOG FREE. Period. Let's discuss that.

[Anonymous]

Here is my radical notion: you can have dogs in cities and dense suburbs, but we should cap how many are allowed, total.

You should have to get a license in order to own a dog within city limits. If the city had reached its allotted quota for dog adoptions for the year, you would not be granted a license and would have to try renewing your application in another year. Perhaps there would be a lottery system for licenses to make it as fair as possible. Limits would be created based on resources, including parks and sidewalks. Exemptions would be available for trained service animals (NOT emotional support dogs -- you can always get an emotional support cat or rabbit or bird, which stays indoors).

No one could have more than one dog.

To get a license, you'd have to pass a certification that showed you had basic knowledge not only of caring for a dog but also of legal requirements for ownership, including leash laws, where dogs can legally pee and defecate, your obligations for cleaning up after your dog, and applicable noise ordinances that applied to barking/whining/howling dogs. You would also sign an agreement stating you would not

All dogs would have to go through approved training courses and be signed off on by a dog trainer. A dog flagged as a potential danger would have to successfully repeat the course and if it failed a second time, its owners license would be withdrawn.

I know this will never happen but I think it's the solution. The problem is not that there are dogs. The problem is that there are too many dogs, and too many of their owners are irresponsible or negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about huge dogs stuck in tiny apartments with them bored and barking non-stop that's more of an issue in cities OP?

Apartments should ALL be DOG FREE. Period. Let's discuss that.

Some dogs are great in apartments. A lot of buildings have size limits for dogs and strict rules about barking and dog behavior in common spaces. That will solve the problem. The issue is when people bring large and energetic dogs into apartments, or when they neglect dogs by leaving them home alone all day or fail to leash them or clean up after them in common areas.

[Anonymous]

So many anti dog people frequent the Pet forum. If you don’t like dogs, just keep scrolling.

So many flaws in all of these supposed “solutions”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my radical notion: you can have dogs in cities and dense suburbs, but we should cap how many are allowed, total.

You should have to get a license in order to own a dog within city limits. If the city had reached its allotted quota for dog adoptions for the year, you would not be granted a license and would have to try renewing your application in another year. Perhaps there would be a lottery system for licenses to make it as fair as possible. Limits would be created based on resources, including parks and sidewalks. Exemptions would be available for trained service animals (NOT emotional support dogs -- you can always get an emotional support cat or rabbit or bird, which stays indoors).

No one could have more than one dog.

To get a license, you'd have to pass a certification that showed you had basic knowledge not only of caring for a dog but also of legal requirements for ownership, including leash laws, where dogs can legally pee and defecate, your obligations for cleaning up after your dog, and applicable noise ordinances that applied to barking/whining/howling dogs. You would also sign an agreement stating you would not

All dogs would have to go through approved training courses and be signed off on by a dog trainer. A dog flagged as a potential danger would have to successfully repeat the course and if it failed a second time, its owners license would be withdrawn.

I know this will never happen but I think it's the solution. The problem is not that there are dogs. The problem is that there are too many dogs, and too many of their owners are irresponsible or negligent.

Okay, like a hunting permit? Sounds good, but what about when a dog gets pregnant and gives birth, and then the owner of the dog gives out the puppies to friends in the city? How do you prevent that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By those arguments people shouldn’t live in cities either! Not enough exercise, not enough nature, have to hold our pee while in meetings for hours at a time.

Dogs have evolved to be human companions. They need food and exercise and of course, but mostly they need companionship to be happy. That can happen anywhere.

They make doggy shoes for hot pavement.

Some dogs do great in the city. Some really don't and I feel bad for them. All dogs need companionship and a real problem in cities is the number of dogs owned by people who work in offices full time or for much of the week and also travel frequently (in fact in DC this seems like the demographic most likely to adopt dogs, which is wild). Those dogs are lonely, under exercised, often ill-behaved due to inadequate training, and become a real burden on neighbors. They can also become a danger.

Getting a dog when you have a full time job and an active social life seems incredibly selfish to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is my radical notion: you can have dogs in cities and dense suburbs, but we should cap how many are allowed, total.

You should have to get a license in order to own a dog within city limits. If the city had reached its allotted quota for dog adoptions for the year, you would not be granted a license and would have to try renewing your application in another year. Perhaps there would be a lottery system for licenses to make it as fair as possible. Limits would be created based on resources, including parks and sidewalks. Exemptions would be available for trained service animals (NOT emotional support dogs -- you can always get an emotional support cat or rabbit or bird, which stays indoors).

No one could have more than one dog.

To get a license, you'd have to pass a certification that showed you had basic knowledge not only of caring for a dog but also of legal requirements for ownership, including leash laws, where dogs can legally pee and defecate, your obligations for cleaning up after your dog, and applicable noise ordinances that applied to barking/whining/howling dogs. You would also sign an agreement stating you would not

All dogs would have to go through approved training courses and be signed off on by a dog trainer. A dog flagged as a potential danger would have to successfully repeat the course and if it failed a second time, its owners license would be withdrawn.

I know this will never happen but I think it's the solution. The problem is not that there are dogs. The problem is that there are too many dogs, and too many of their owners are irresponsible or negligent.

Okay, like a hunting permit? Sounds good, but what about when a dog gets pregnant and gives birth, and then the owner of the dog gives out the puppies to friends in the city? How do you prevent that?

City dogs should all be fixed, duh. 100% of them. You can breed dogs in the countryside, there should be no backyard breeding in cities. This isn't a barn. If your dog gets preggers, your dog gets taken away from you because you are an idiot and shouldn't own a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many anti dog people frequent the Pet forum. If you don’t like dogs, just keep scrolling.

So many flaws in all of these supposed “solutions”.

I love dogs.

I dislike about 95% of dog owners.

These things go hand in hand.

[Anonymous]

I think it's cruel to raise a big dog in an apartment.

I think the weight for dogs in apartments should be capped at 15-20 max.

My neighbor right now has 3 people in a 1-bedroom apartment along with a big German Shepheard that they got as a puppy. Times are tough, I get it, and I don't see anything wrong with too many people in 1 unit, but adding a dog in is cruel. And no, they didn't move in with the dog. They've lived here about 4 years now and just got the puppy around 2 years ago. It was a choice they made after moving in to add the dog.

Other apartment residents have 2 or even 3 dogs. First, wow, congrats on having some money because you have to pay a $500 per pet nonrefundable pet deposit and then $50/mo pet rent on each pet where I live. But even the biggest apartment here, 3 bedrooms, is not big enough for 3 large dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about huge dogs stuck in tiny apartments with them bored and barking non-stop that's more of an issue in cities OP?

Apartments should ALL be DOG FREE. Period. Let's discuss that.

Sure. Townhomes and condos too. But many houses aren’t much better. Keep the dog in a cage all day then let it out to pee in your tiny matchbook yard. It’s all cruel.