Sanity tests for dog owners
They are in prospect in Russia, if the state Duma enacts a proposal currently before it. Although I cannot imagine any circumstances under which I would wish to own a dog, the law is not aimed at all breeds, but rather the usual list of dangerous breeds - Rottweilers, Tosas, Pit Bulls and so forth. A prospective owner would have to prove his or her sanity before being allowed to own one of said breeds. In addition, "[The] bill would prevent people who abuse drugs or alcohol from owning dangerous breeds, bar these dogs from many public places and make sure that they were always kept on a leash and muzzled. Owners would also have to receive permission to keep these dogs in their apartments and receive special training". More here.
The idea of dog owners being stopped and required to show a sanity certificate, does - at least in the abstract - amuse. I read somewhere ages ago that small dogs are far more likely to bite than even the demonised breeds, although doubtless a bite from a Jack Russell is less likely to be life threatening than one from a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Perhaps testing the sanity of people who seek to own some of the ghastlier toy breeds could be amusing too.
The idea of dog owners being stopped and required to show a sanity certificate, does - at least in the abstract - amuse. I read somewhere ages ago that small dogs are far more likely to bite than even the demonised breeds, although doubtless a bite from a Jack Russell is less likely to be life threatening than one from a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Perhaps testing the sanity of people who seek to own some of the ghastlier toy breeds could be amusing too.
Labels: Law and order, Mother Russia
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 9:24 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
I keep my Rottie to unleash on illegal immigrants. Or anyone who looks like one (in my alcoholic view).
What about cat owners? Particularly multiple-cat owners.. they are more prone to be insane I reckon.
TG - you might want to duck and cover. At least two of my regulars have cats living with them (I'm not sure that it is wise to speak of 'ownership' when it comes to cats)
The craziest dog I ever came across was a fila brasileiro, a brazilian mastiff/bulldog cross. It was owned by a former military police dog handler who had bought it as a 'retirement project' but who had long since lost any control over it. Apparently, these dogs were bred to defend ranches from thieves and to hunt jaguars, and (to quote from an expert) 'were also employed to track down and capture runaway slaves. It is probably the only breed that was selected for centuries to deeply dislike the humans they were not raised with, and, to this day, temperament tests run during championships require the dogs to attack without being coached, to remain self-confident during a shooting test, and to openly show their suspicion of strangers. The standard prescribes that, even at dog shows, Filas should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament."'
Dogs have owners.
Cats have staff.
swift
i want one
just in case you havent seen it here is a nice dog clip
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1vzfUPGiSnQ
Swift - looking at those, and Ridgebacks, I think that 'there are no bad dogs, only bad owners' needs a touch of modification....
Hitch, I thought they might appeal to you. Nice clip, seen it before somewhere; on your blog maybe.
C, I don't think ridgebacks should be classed in the same league as filas, pit bulls etc. I used to have a pair of ridgebacks and they never showed real aggression. They're hounds, so have more in common with foxhounds than with fighting dogs.
» Post a Comment