# Should Pit Bull Owners Be Licensed?



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

I would like to hear some opinions about the idea of needing to be licensed to own a pitbull... good or bad? If you have not heard of it before, this was some what of a "middle ground" that i have heard in BSL arguements before... forcing people wanting to own pitbulls (or any other powerful dog) needing to be tested to be eligible to own one of these animals. Thoughts?


----------



## LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se (Sep 15, 2008)

wow..... idk where i stand. doesnt sound like a bad idea, becuase these dogs arent u regualr dogs. and if they do it right, sure these dogs would be taken care of better (hopefully) and go to more responsible owners. 

but it is an infriction to our rights.... im assumin that would be the counter argument here.. or it could be, who are they to tell me wether or not i can have a license to own this particular dog....


idk....


----------



## dan'sgrizz (Oct 22, 2008)

Liscense... None for me thanks. If wverydog in America had to do it... I might seriously consider maybe thinking about doing it.


----------



## Mrs_APBT_America (Jul 19, 2008)

I think it would be a horrible idea only because I think it would be used as a control issue. I think eventually it would get so so so hard to get a license to own a pitbull (intentionally) that their main idea would to eventually make it where no one can own one therefore the pitbull would eventually become almost or even extinct because there would be so many of them being put down due to the fact that there wouldn't be enough "qualified" and licensed owners around. 

Also, I think it would cause the trouble makers to intentionally breed and breed and own them illegally to prove "something". I don't know, I just think it would over all be a horrible idea!


----------



## LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se (Sep 15, 2008)

Mrs_APBT_America said:


> I think it would be a horrible idea only because I think it would be used as a control issue. I think eventually it would get so so so hard to get a license to own a pitbull (intentionally) that their *main idea would to eventually make it where no one can own one therefore the pitbull would eventually become almost or even extinct because there would be so many of them being put down due to the fact that there wouldn't be enough "qualified" and licensed owners around. *
> 
> Also, I think it would cause the trouble makers to intentionally breed and breed and own them illegally to prove "something". I don't know, I just think it would over all be a horrible idea!


mmmmm good point... didnt think of that


----------



## college_dude (Oct 16, 2008)

Makes sense to me...think of it this way (and yes i know this is an exaggeration)

Any average Joe can't own a lion, you would need some sort of license.
Nobody seems to be complaining about not having their "right to own a lion"


I think its a good idea, but how about breeders have to go through a better license system too. Because BYBs are a huge part of the problem as I see it. 
JMO

edit: oh also just to clarify, im not talking about something crazy like IQ tests, I mean something along the same lines as you have to go through to get a hand gun...the basic background check, etc. and i think it should apply to any of the powerful gaurdian type breeds as well, aka rotti, GSD, malinois, dogo, cane corso, bandogge, canis panther, boerboel, fila, etc


----------



## Mrs_APBT_America (Jul 19, 2008)

college_dude said:


> Makes sense to me...think of it this way (and yes i know this is an exaggeration)
> 
> Any average Joe can't own a lion, you would need some sort of license.
> Nobody seems to be complaining about not having their "right to own a lion"
> ...


But the thing is, there isn't an abundance of lions as there are pitbulls. So if they just up and decided to make this go through, what is gonna happen to all the pitbulls that are already having a hard enough time trying to find homes. Pitbulls are really no different from any other breed so it is wrong to do that to a pitbull and not other dog breeds.

If that falls through then I would suggest that a law be passed for owning a chihuahua. People should not own one if they have children in the household only because the majority of them will snap at a child for no reason. My daughter has been bitten twice by a chihuahua when she was just sitting in the middle of a room putting together a puzzle. But I can't judge all chihuahua's to be like this therefore ppl shouldn't judge all pitbulls!

Just because a law can be enforced about being licensed in order to own a pitbull doesn't mean it will stop the thugs from owning them anyways. It will just be more problems for the decent good citizens.


----------



## jeep lex (Jan 29, 2009)

it really does make sence but it all depends on the requirements for obtaining the liscence and i think allot of people wouldnt even bother getting the liscene and just go to a byb and the its all pointless anyway


----------



## LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se (Sep 15, 2008)

I THINK!!!!

there should be a license to breed dogs.. ANY BREED.... and BYBs should go to jail.... JMO


----------



## American_Pit13 (Apr 23, 2007)

Owning no Breeding yes. I think you should have to be certified and licensed to breed dogs.


----------



## Mrs_APBT_America (Jul 19, 2008)

LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se said:


> I THINK!!!!
> 
> there should be a license to breed dogs.. ANY BREED.... and BYBs should go to jail.... JMO


:goodpost:


----------



## Jr. (Nov 3, 2008)

LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se said:


> I THINK!!!!
> 
> there should be a license to breed dogs.. ANY BREED.... and BYBs should go to jail.... JMO


good one!! I agree w/ that! :goodpost:


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

This was a thread on another site that I thought should be discussed here also, nothing more nothing less 

And in a way I can agree with it, most people gets these dogs and do not know how to handle them and that's most of the problem as I see it


----------



## PBGoodDogs (Feb 1, 2009)

This is an interesting discussion. Rather than restricting ownership, making breeder licensing mandatory along with dog behavioral/psychology training for owners might make some of these issues disappear.

However, there will always be the ill-intentioned and lazy amongst the ranks to spoil the entire bunch.


----------



## LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se (Sep 15, 2008)

PBGoodDogs said:


> *This is an interesting discussion. Rather than restricting ownership, making breeder licensing mandatory along with dog behavioral/psychology training for owners might make some of these issues disappear.
> *
> However, there will always be the ill-intentioned and lazy amongst the ranks to spoil the entire bunch.


:goodpost: i like that idea but yeah, there will always be some idiot who doesnt follow the rules


----------



## Stodknocker (Jan 15, 2009)

Mrs_APBT_America said:


> I think it would be a horrible idea only because I think it would be used as a control issue. I think eventually it would get so so so hard to get a license to own a pitbull (intentionally) that their main idea would to eventually make it where no one can own one therefore the pitbull would eventually become almost or even extinct because there would be so many of them being put down due to the fact that there wouldn't be enough "qualified" and licensed owners around.


That is so true....that is basically how most drugs were initially made illegal. The federal government realized the constitution protected a citizens right to ingest anything they wish, but the made automatic weapons and marijuana legal but you needed a permit to purchase it. After enactment permits were never given out and these items became illegal in American.


----------



## purplestars21 (Dec 25, 2008)

Mrs_APBT_America said:


> But the thing is, there isn't an abundance of lions as there are pitbulls. So if they just up and decided to make this go through, what is gonna happen to all the pitbulls that are already having a hard enough time trying to find homes. Pitbulls are really no different from any other breed so it is wrong to do that to a pitbull and not other dog breeds.
> 
> If that falls through then I would suggest that a law be passed for owning a chihuahua. People should not own one if they have children in the household only because the majority of them will snap at a child for no reason. My daughter has been bitten twice by a chihuahua when she was just sitting in the middle of a room putting together a puzzle. But I can't judge all chihuahua's to be like this therefore ppl shouldn't judge all pitbulls!
> 
> Just because a law can be enforced about being licensed in order to own a pitbull doesn't mean it will stop the thugs from owning them anyways. It will just be more problems for the decent good citizens.


amen exspecially on chis thems mean dogs they (my mothers dogs)always snap at my pitbull and make her cower and they have drawn blood if she didnt hit the floor fast enough. dont forget poodles those are mean dogs to.
i like what i heard someone else say about liscensing dogs- its just a hit list for when full blown bsl comes thru. people that hate pits will never shut up and leave them alone no matter what we do to soothe their egos or consciences, just like people who are always screaming no more guns anywhere only for military yet they made it harder to get them adn own them...... it will never be enough.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

american_pit13 said:


> Owning no Breeding yes. I think you should have to be certified and licensed to breed dogs.


This I very much agree with this is where the problem starts and this is where the problem needs to be corrected. :goodpost: The harder it is for people to breed the less likely you are to have the wrong people breeding. Those wanting to breed who go through the strict process of becoming certified and licensed should be held liable for what they do and will most likely not place there dogs with just anyone without prior home inspections contracts and things like that to protect not only the breed but their a**es as well.


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

Absolutely not. :hammer:


----------



## money_killer (Apr 14, 2008)

even though im from australia. i will still give my opinion. i reckon no lience's from apbt cause once you do that will prove that apbt's are special and different from other dogs or "dangerous"


----------



## aussie pitbull (Feb 16, 2008)

what about making people go to training to learn how to treat and raise dogs and teach family members so we dont have people having mean dogs (all breeds)


----------



## MetalGirl30 (Apr 15, 2008)

No, because that is just another form of stereo-typing this breed or any other powerful breed if you asked me.
Plus it would never work. There are to many out there right now and more and more litters everyday, there would be no way to govern it.
It would be the equavalent to the government saying yes to marajuana. There reason why they don't is because there is no way to regulate it or stop people from growing it on their own.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

so yall think that this will help. Just like in 1976 when they passed that law. That helped.

no matter what you do. there will still be those that misuse this breed for whatever reason. Just because you make them get a license doesnt mean they will.

so by doing this you make things harder on the citizen that obeys. or tries to do things the right way.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

Her in Tn they are trying to pass a law to tax your average breeder(the ones that just do it for the better of the breed)
the reason they gave was the gov is losing too much money by not taxing the sale of puppies

like in NY i read that they want to tax owning cows. I think they called it the methane tax. Because cows and their gas are destroying the ozone.


----------



## GnarlyBlue (Aug 18, 2007)

It would be a good Idea if it could never be used as a way to track down dog owners to enforce a BSL. Sounds to me like how the Nazi's made all the jews register who they were and where they lived, then came in the middle of the night and hauled them away. I try to stay as inconspicuous as possible for just that reason!! I don't want some SPCA knocking on my door one day saying that my dogs are now illegal, hand them over!
In a perfect world that would be a great solution...
Breeding would be a GREAT license but completely unenforcable. *make it," licensure to advertise the sale or adoption of puppies" that way anyone with a sign or phone # advertising sala of byb pups would be fined and litter confescated* reputable breeders could legally sell puppies that were well bred w/out fear of reprisal. Effectively take away BYB's motivation to breed... MONEY


----------



## MADBood (May 31, 2008)

Folks would just go underground...you think breeding ethics are bad now? There would be limited access to these dogs and the quality and function of the breed would diminish, IMO, of course.


----------



## Elvisfink (Oct 13, 2008)

A big NO! This is just like licensing gun owners. All it does is give the government information on what and how many you own. Laws like these don’t stop the criminals from owning and abusing what every the government is making you license. Again, just like guns


----------



## ForPits&Giggles (Oct 21, 2008)

dennispits said:


> Her in Tn they are trying to pass a law to tax your average breeder(the ones that just do it for the better of the breed)
> the reason they gave was the gov is losing too much money by not taxing the sale of puppies
> 
> *like in NY i read that they want to tax owning cows. I think they called it the methane tax. Because cows and their gas are destroying the ozone.*


The bad thing is, its not like they are gonna use that money to fix the o zone.

As for the OP Topic, I have to agree with those who say the government would just use this license against law abiding responsible, ethical people. The criminals would just go underground. The governments job is to control people. When they cant control criminals, the rest of us are left to suffer.


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

I'd say their job is to protect the country from and keep the roads paved. Shit, they can't even accomplish that. It's never good to use our government as a tool to control people unless they are foreigners. The more help we ask for, the deeper we are in their pocket.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

Marty said:


> I would like to hear some opinions about the idea of needing to be licensed to own a pitbull... good or bad? If you have not heard of it before, this was some what of a "middle ground" that i have heard in BSL arguements before... forcing people wanting to own pitbulls (or any other powerful dog) needing to be tested to be eligible to own one of these animals. Thoughts?


Why not? if your in the position to own something that could be potentially lethal[like a gun]why not be qualified to own such a thing after passing some sort of test and after paying some fee and acquiring a licence?
I'm not a fan of more laws however and don't know if it is something anyone would even follow.
It Would have to be enforced really hard,which has the potential to lead to abuse by the enforcing party.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

why should I have to pay a special fee to own the breed i desire to own. This goes back to people not being held responsible for their actions. Just because Joe Blow has pits that he allows to run free and do whatever they want. I am being held responsible (by making me register and paying the fee) for the other mans decisions. Knowing that he will never register. he will just go get the next big dog and do the same.

At some point you have to say hey your an idiot take care of your dogs.


----------



## rawlins98 (Dec 30, 2008)

Elvisfink said:


> A big NO! This is just like licensing gun owners. All it does is give the government information on what and how many you own. Laws like these don't stop the criminals from owning and abusing what every the government is making you license. Again, just like guns


 I agree 100% .


----------



## MetalGirl30 (Apr 15, 2008)

dennispits said:


> why should I have to pay a special fee to own the breed i desire to own. This goes back to people not being held responsible for their actions. Just because Joe Blow has pits that he allows to run free and do whatever they want. I am being held responsible (by making me register and paying the fee) for the other mans decisions. Knowing that he will never register. he will just go get the next big dog and do the same.
> 
> At some point you have to say hey your an idiot take care of your dogs.


I agree,,responsible owners should not have to be punished b/c of some irresponsible owner. Better yet they should fine the owner and just plain out ban them from owning the breed. To me that would sound like the better thing to do. You would still be weeding the bad ones out instead of making the responsible ones pay. Enforcing it is where the problem is going to arise. How do you enforce something when there are so many.
So here is ...they enforce it by raising your taxes for the new "man power" and hours that are going to be needed everyday to run an operation this big.
It is going to take more than a few ACO to do the job and regular law enforcement will tell you they have better things to do then enforce dog laws. They are only backup when an arrest is needed. They are there to "protect and serve" human lives. Every now and then you have an exception.

So you are basically in a catch 22 situation...


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

well it's better than outlawing the dogs completely[in my opinion].
But whatever.
People who own apbts are mostly ignorant individuals[sorry the truth hurts],and they need some form of guidance or direction or control.The breed will always exist weather made 100% illegal by bsl or not.
And in a worse case scenario it could be recreated easily.
There will always be dog fighting so the apbt will always thrive since that is what it does best and what it was created for,somewhere in places with the least amount of laws it will thrive at least.spay and neuter laws im definitely against because it decides who can and can not breed and could severely alter a breed by just allowing show people the right to breed the dogs.
But i damn sure am against everyone having the right to breed there dogs,since that is what has created the situation the dog finds itself in[and its fanciers].
Over breeding,breeding for all the wrong reasons etc.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

So how do you decide who should be given the right to breed or not?
Even if you have to have a license any one can get one. Like the handgun permit anyone can get one until they do something bad. 

So you are not preventing anything.

How does that help?

Make everyone go to class to own a bulldog? wel that will work sor some but the ones that dont want to are just going to keep their bulldogs in the basement away from everyone. 

There goes proper socialization. And when they breed them and sell the pups and the new owners do the same. you have a worse problem than the one you began with.


----------



## smith family kennels (Jan 10, 2009)

I agree you have to think about dmx he was busted years ago and was never suppose to own another dog again but then he was busted again in az for the same thing. It didnt stop him the first time why would it stop him the second. If you say John doe cant own this dog he is just going to move and do it again. Just like not all sex affenders register. I had a rapest and murder live down the street from me for 13 years and no body knew he was there and he had been on americas most wanted for killing and raping 3 women in texas 13 years before. They can't even keep up with our felons how are they going to keep up and monitor who can and can't own a pitbull.


----------



## American_Pit13 (Apr 23, 2007)

SadieBlues said:


> This I very much agree with this is where the problem starts and this is where the problem needs to be corrected. :goodpost: The harder it is for people to breed the less likely you are to have the wrong people breeding. Those wanting to breed who go through the strict process of becoming certified and licensed should be held liable for what they do and will most likely not place there dogs with just anyone without prior home inspections contracts and things like that to protect not only the breed but their a**es as well.


If Breeders didn't place dogs in bad homes there wouldn't be bad owners. If a breeder was Certified then licensed you would only have knowledgeable breeders. You are always going to have those who do what ever they want but I think it would cut down on thousands of puppies produced.

Certification should be per breed.

In the end no matter what it will just be a way for the gov. or someone to make money. Pay for license. Pay for certification classes.

Would be great if it worked tho.
Then you don't have to have a license to own just to create.


----------



## smith family kennels (Jan 10, 2009)

they are just going to take it underground and breed anyway. There are hundreds of back yard breeders just in my county alone and most of the time they dogs are in awful shape . Animal control just drives right by their house. I have to call and make a seen. Its crazy cause they just call them right back on me saying my dogs are fighting dogs cause they can see some ribs. Dumb a** at least they have food and water and a dog house to sleep in and there isnt 2 litter of puppies just running loose through the yard. These are the idiots I deal with and a license is not going to stop them the passing cars seem to cut into their profit though. I know thats wrong and sad to say but if you saw what and how they were raised you would say the same thing. Anyone that lets pups expecially of this breed run around the yard free with others chained up everywhere has it coming. The only thing that is going to stop them is death. Its just like guns people sell them on the streets unregistered or stolen all the time. I don't think its right I have to be punished for idiots that aren't going to go by the law anyways.


----------



## smith family kennels (Jan 10, 2009)

they are trying to pass a limited animal law here unless you have a kennel license its not going to help there are to many fields and to many dirt roads sheds and basements for people to hide their animals but I will pay for my kennel license and don't think I wont be the first to turn someone in for not having theirs


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

There are byb in every aspect. byb is not just the neighbor who breeds his 2 mutts every 6 months.

alot of them make tons of money and have tons of dogs. what is a license fee going to stop if they make 40000 a year in breeding dogs. they will go and get their license and still do it.

then on the other hand you have a respectable kennel that does it for the dogs and works full time just so he can do it. he cant afford to get a license


----------



## Rock Creek Kennels (Oct 25, 2006)

I feel that unless you are working your dogs towards a title of some sort(show, weight pull, obedience, etc.) that you shouldnt breed. There are WAY to many people out there breeding $50 pits just to make a buck. The shelters are PACKED FULL of pit bulls because of this. Its giving our breed and the people who own them an even worse name. I dont think there should be a license to own, but a license to breed...and there should be alot of stipulations behind it.


----------



## GnarlyBlue (Aug 18, 2007)

a license to breed would impossible to enforce. Animals reproduce on their own, that fact means that no government can regulate it... But needing a license to SELL or ADOPT w/ a rehoming fee.. any and every breed. Then you'd see BYB's dry up because if they were to advertise the sale of animals the enforcement agency will have contact info to track down and verify that they are legit. If they won't spend a few hundred on vet checks they sure as hell wont bother to pick up a license. No permit to own or buy one just to sell.


----------



## GnarlyBlue (Aug 18, 2007)

dennispits said:


> There are byb in every aspect. byb is not just the neighbor who breeds his 2 mutts every 6 months.
> 
> alot of them make tons of money and have tons of dogs. what is a license fee going to stop if they make 40000 a year in breeding dogs. they will go and get their license and still do it.
> 
> then on the other hand you have a respectable kennel that does it for the dogs and works full time just so he can do it. he cant afford to get a license


This is very true, however a puppy mill is not the same as BYB's.. That's a whole seperate problem all together.

State sponsored licensure is rarely over 500$ so really a qualification process would be in order as well. Kind of like a contractors license (which I have). Those who byb rarely go to the trouble of finding out info on becoming legit, they just couldn't be troubled. Either way it should NOT be a license to breed or own. It should be a license to SELL. Takes away the BYB's motive to breed if they cant put an ad in the paper for fear of a sheriff knocking on their door


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

Rock Creek Kennels said:


> I feel that unless you are working your dogs towards a title of some sort(show, weight pull, obedience, etc.) that you shouldnt breed. There are WAY to many people out there breeding $50 pits just to make a buck. The shelters are PACKED FULL of pit bulls because of this. Its giving our breed and the people who own them an even worse name. I dont think there should be a license to own, but a license to breed...and there should be alot of stipulations behind it.


Yes this is what I was thinking of ... Stipulations on breeding I think in order to obtain a breeding/kennel lic you must show proof of registration with the akc ukc or adba. Show proof of passing OFA and HIPS and Elbow testing. They should make it so you must have a titled dog prior to breeding and be able to show proof of this. Proof of up to date shots deworm's and things of that nature from the vet. Each breeder applying for a lic should have a kennel inspection to make sure the kennel is up to par following safety and sanitary guidelines. If they placed strict guidelines on those wanting to obtain a lic to breed you wouldn't have nearly as many byb's as you do now.


----------



## buzhunter (Sep 3, 2007)

The only way they could control the sale of pups is have mandatory spay/neuter laws. I think everyone would just "give" their pups away to people they know well. Accidental litters happen all the time.


----------



## LiiL_L0cz_Red_N0se (Sep 15, 2008)

SadieBlues said:


> Yes this is what I was thinking of ... Stipulations on breeding I think in order to obtain a breeding/kennel lic you must show proof of registration with the akc ukc or adba. Show proof of passing OFA and HIPS and Elbow testing. They should make it so you must have a titled dog prior to breeding and be able to show proof of this. Proof of up to date shots deworm's and things of that nature from the vet. Each breeder applying for a lic should have a kennel inspection to make sure the kennel is up to par following safety and sanitary guidelines. If they placed strict guidelines on those wanting to obtain a lic to breed you wouldn't have nearly as many byb's as you do now.


u read my mind... this is whre people wouldnt be able to uptain these licenses from. SURE there is always ppl who get away with it no matter what, but at the same time that goes for ANY/EVERY law out there... i think this wil def help control the suprlus of puppies and get the dog back to standard


----------



## ampstang (Feb 4, 2009)

I think if there's going to be a license, it should be for all big dogs. There are just too many crappy owners out there.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

dennispits said:


> So how do you decide who should be given the right to breed or not?.


People who are working there dogs,titling there dogs,using there dogs as working farm stock etc should have the right to breed,but only a few litters,there's to many litters being bred.



dennispits said:


> Make everyone go to class to own a bulldog? wel that will work sor some* but the ones that dont want to are just going to keep their bulldogs in the basement away from everyone.*


.Just like the ignorant do already,I really cant imagine thing getting much worse than they already are,complete breed bans in places like Denver maybe could of been avoided with proper education on the breed being required by the prospective owner/owners,licencing,breeding restrictions etc.
Requiring potential owners too buck up and be responsible is better than a total breed ban in my opinion.
Yes criminals will always do as they please,but that is a fringe element of society,making the dog harder to obtain will cut out a majority of byb's,they can move on to the next breed,or find a new way to make a $.
Im coming from a point of view where the people who are considered criminals presently/today,in this society who own these dogs are not *really *the problem,The problem is a over population issue.
But im also coming from a position that believes the majority of individuals who own any number of dog breeds need some sort of guidance.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

It sounds like we are putting the blame on the breeder, what about the ppl that buy and months later say "well it is jus too tough to have a dog". and send them to the shelter.

it doiesnt matter who the breeder is if the person that purchased the dog get tired of walking it and so forth and sends it away or drops it off in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## dennispits (Jul 1, 2008)

I agree that if the only reason you are breeding dogs is to make the car payment then you are in the wrong.

Or if you just want one litter to make up the cost of buying the pet dog you have. again wrong.

The newspapers that post these for sale adds should be looked into.


----------



## cane76 (Aug 16, 2006)

a breeder should be able to establish a relationship with the prospective buyer,and keep up on the pup after its been sold,if the owner dumps the dog and a contract was involved in the buying situation,he would be held accountable for a breech of said contract and responsible for whatever stipulation he/she violated.jmo.
Also i believe a breeder should be able to distinguish a good and bad potential owner from interviews both over the phone,through the computer and in person.
Just make it as hard to get a apbt as possable so only those who really want one stay interested.


----------



## Sadie (Jun 18, 2008)

cane76 said:


> a breeder should be able to establish a relationship with the prospective buyer,and keep up on the pup after its been sold,if the owner dumps the dog and a contract was involved in the buying situation,he would be held accountable for a breech of said contract and responsible for whatever stipulation he/she violated.jmo.
> Also i believe a breeder should be able to distinguish a good and bad potential owner from interviews both over the phone,through the computer and in person.
> Just make it as hard to get a apbt as possable so only those who really want one stay interested.


We are so on the same page !:goodpost: And let's face it the ones breeding who don't give a sh*t don't take the time and spend the money to make sure their dogs go to a good home because all they see is the next $ sign the ones who are breeding and are doing it the right way are not making a profit in their pockets they are creating kick ass dogs who will represent the breed the way it should be. Those other type of so called breeder's are not going to take the time and energy to go through such a heavy process just to breed because it would mean they would actually have to do something and spend more money than it would be worth them to breed in the first place. A breeder who truly loves his dogs and the breed is going to be just as selective as who his dog goes to as he is when selecting a dog to breed. It may not cure the whole problem but it will damn sure cut those nickle and dime breeder's out the equation real quick. Breeder's need to be liable for what they are breeding and who they are allowing their dogs to go to bottom line.


----------



## GnarlyBlue (Aug 18, 2007)

buzhunter said:


> The only way they could control the sale of pups is have mandatory spay/neuter laws. I think everyone would just "give" their pups away to people they know well. Accidental litters happen all the time.


but BYB's.. those who profit from regularly breeding their unproven, unregistered, un health checked dogs would lose their whole motivation for doing so


----------



## GnarlyBlue (Aug 18, 2007)

I think it comes down to enforcement and what is trying to be accomplished..

A breeders license would be ineffective because like, dennis said the high rollers would get their license and go on, small time BYB's would just go underground. You'd probably see it overturned in the end because it infringed too much on civil rights. The government should not be able to tell you what you do in such a broad sense.

If you want to go after over population. make it maditory neuter/spay all dogs not being actively shown or worked, or at the very least those not registered with ADBA,UKC,AKC.

If you want to go after BYB's make it a crime to sell animals w/out a breeders permit which would be issued, possibly through one or all of the afore mentioned registries, and only issued to registered, preferably titled, def. health checked dogs.

This is all a pipe dream though. I doubt anything that made this much sense could ever find it's way into legislation:hammer::hammer:


----------



## vsaldana (May 19, 2011)

ok i need a controvesral topic for school and i am choosing to argue against licencing pit bull owners but i need hard facts inorder to do this i want to explain to my fellow students the kindness their really is in these dogs so please help on good sits i can go on


----------



## angelbaby (Feb 4, 2010)

vsaldana said:


> ok i need a controvesral topic for school and i am choosing to argue against licencing pit bull owners but i need hard facts inorder to do this i want to explain to my fellow students the kindness their really is in these dogs so please help on good sits i can go on


try making a new thread you will get more imput that way instead of highjacking an old thread that may be passed over by many. there is alot of good info on this site as well.


----------



## clockwerkninja (Dec 8, 2009)

It would not be a horrible idea if the government were not so far out of control as to not be trusted.. As it stands tho I feel it would be used to as a round about way to ban the breed.


----------

