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

[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”.

AMEN!!! Half of this forum these days is just trolls trolling trollingly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people can only think of themselves and what they want. They have convinced that what they give their dog, is best for their dog.
Also, we have completely bred the wolf out of the dog. Dogs are like cats now and seem like they are happy in a small apartment.
I have several barking around me when the owners are gone too long.
At least one owner is one of those delicate people who needs the dog. I think they gave the dog an anxiety.

A lot of people who know way too little about dogs and dog handling feel entitled to get a dog the way you get a couch: for aesthetic reasons. It becomes dangerous very fast, with out-of-control poorly-trained neurotic dogs causing chaos, often in spaces they should never have been in the first place.

Dogs are a responsibility, not an accessory!

[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”.

let me introduce you to the "Recent Topics" link. Stop gatekeeping what people can and cannot post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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

not sure where the "would not..." goes, but I think this, plus mandatory liability insurance for all dogs (regardless of breed) is reasonable.

I disagree with the max cap on licenses, because it will create animosity and jealousy issues that might lead to neighborhood tensions or even crime. I disagree with the "trainers must approve" bit because I know a bunch of trainers who are absolute shite, many of whom would certify dogs that don't meet the appropriate standards.

But this licensing bit, showing knowledge of responsible handling and understanding of relevant laws, is what we have to do to drive, and could easily be ported over to dog ownership without much confusion.

[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?

Breeder's licenses and high fines for anyone breeding dogs without one. Much higher standard of knowledge/ability certification required for a breeder's license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly? yeah. I love dogs, and this is pretty spot on. This is so very rarely a genuine "oops" and so often the result of people not containing their pets, or deliberately breeding animals nobody needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Breeder's licenses and high fines for anyone breeding dogs without one. Much higher standard of knowledge/ability certification required for a breeder's license.

This should happen regardless. Backyard breeding is why we wind up with so many dogs in need of a home. There's no upside to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like the recent thread about someone wanting to get and board an unfixed puppy despite knowing they had multiple trips coming up?

Yeah. People don't understand what responsibly having a dog actually means. knowledge tests for licenses could improve that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people can only think of themselves and what they want. They have convinced that what they give their dog, is best for their dog.
Also, we have completely bred the wolf out of the dog. Dogs are like cats now and seem like they are happy in a small apartment.
I have several barking around me when the owners are gone too long.
At least one owner is one of those delicate people who needs the dog. I think they gave the dog an anxiety.

Doodle owners, you mean? There was a hilariously awful thread on reddit recently about this sort of person: https://www.reddit.com/r/RoverPetSitting/comments/1lyet02/dog_sitting_job_turned_out_way_more_intense_than/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all large dogs were bred to do a job and they go crazy if they can't do that job.
Some dogs were bred to do nothing all day but be a companion. They are called lap dogs. And that's completely fine! But many people find those dogs wimpy-looking and are trying to force a big dog into a lap dog role.
If you can restructure your life so that your big dog gets to do the job it was bred to do, good for you. The vast majority of owners don't do that.

Not really. Sporting dogs were bred to lie around 90% of the time and then go for a long walk with owner and retrieve some birds. We have a big house and all my golden wants to do is lie with the same 100 square feet 99% of the time, and then go on a hike once a day. He would hate living on a farm and being forced to spend lots of time outdoors.

A Great Dane is arguably a better apartment dog that a small hyper yappy dog.

You know what breed makes surprisingly good apartment dogs, provided they can get out for a good walk? Greyhounds. Laziest mfers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dogs are snoozing beside me now. They don’t really need space in the house.

The real problem here is people, as they are so much less pleasant than dogs. You should have to have a license to procreate.

All the dogs I've ever owned have had full run of the house (once trained), yet they always vie for the single couch cushion next to where I typically sit, or the one I just got up from, regardless of breed, age, general activity level...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

let me introduce you to the "Recent Topics" link. Stop gatekeeping what people can and cannot post.

That's right, PP! Defend your right to shitpost and troll freely! You tell 'em!

Who needs rational discourse anyway, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all large dogs were bred to do a job and they go crazy if they can't do that job.
Some dogs were bred to do nothing all day but be a companion. They are called lap dogs. And that's completely fine! But many people find those dogs wimpy-looking and are trying to force a big dog into a lap dog role.
If you can restructure your life so that your big dog gets to do the job it was bred to do, good for you. The vast majority of owners don't do that.

Not really. Sporting dogs were bred to lie around 90% of the time and then go for a long walk with owner and retrieve some birds. We have a big house and all my golden wants to do is lie with the same 100 square feet 99% of the time, and then go on a hike once a day. He would hate living on a farm and being forced to spend lots of time outdoors.

A Great Dane is arguably a better apartment dog that a small hyper yappy dog.

You know what breed makes surprisingly good apartment dogs, provided they can get out for a good walk? Greyhounds. Laziest mfers...

We used to live in a big building with a lot of dogs and this is really true -- we saw lots of smaller dogs come through who gave their owners a lot of trouble, were noisy and hard to train. But our direct upstairs neighbors the entire time had two large greyhounds and they were silent, not active, took two sedate walks a day, and otherwise slept all day long. I'd take a greyhound as a neighbor over like 90% of other breeds including the ones that get billed as good apartment dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all large dogs were bred to do a job and they go crazy if they can't do that job.
Some dogs were bred to do nothing all day but be a companion. They are called lap dogs. And that's completely fine! But many people find those dogs wimpy-looking and are trying to force a big dog into a lap dog role.
If you can restructure your life so that your big dog gets to do the job it was bred to do, good for you. The vast majority of owners don't do that.

Not really. Sporting dogs were bred to lie around 90% of the time and then go for a long walk with owner and retrieve some birds. We have a big house and all my golden wants to do is lie with the same 100 square feet 99% of the time, and then go on a hike once a day. He would hate living on a farm and being forced to spend lots of time outdoors.

A Great Dane is arguably a better apartment dog that a small hyper yappy dog.

You know what breed makes surprisingly good apartment dogs, provided they can get out for a good walk? Greyhounds. Laziest mfers...

We used to live in a big building with a lot of dogs and this is really true -- we saw lots of smaller dogs come through who gave their owners a lot of trouble, were noisy and hard to train. But our direct upstairs neighbors the entire time had two large greyhounds and they were silent, not active, took two sedate walks a day, and otherwise slept all day long. I'd take a greyhound as a neighbor over like 90% of other breeds including the ones that get billed as good apartment dogs.

People think that "little dog" is synonymous with "apartment dog". Some are, but most small dogs are notoriously difficult to potty train, are yappy/noisy, and require significant energy to tire out mentally, even though a walk is enough to exhaust them physically. In my experience, little dogs are much more likely to chew your stuff, growl at strangers/visitors/other dogs, and create chaos and noise that isn't helpful in close quarters with others, like an apartment or condo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

let me introduce you to the "Recent Topics" link. Stop gatekeeping what people can and cannot post.

That's right, PP! Defend your right to shitpost and troll freely! You tell 'em!

Who needs rational discourse anyway, amirite?

DP. Dogs are the only pet who regularly and increasingly appears in public. Thus everyone has an opinion on dogs. You don't see these threads on other animals because it is relatively rare for someone who doesn't actually own a cat or a bird or fish to be in close proximity to any of those animals in a public or shared space.

It's not "trolling" to have an opinion on dogs who live in your apartment building, who you encounter on the sidewalks around your home, who show up on your local coffee shop, grocery store, or school playground. If you don't like the general public weighing in on your dog, then stop exposing the general public to your dog.