Xenzag's idea was too vague and I think a lot of folks misunderstood it, especially the car analogy. I'm not really sure I understood it myself. So here's my version, and I'll give as much detail as possible.

I saw a young girl, weighed maybe 80 pounds, yesterday attempting to walk a very large, muscular dog that probably weighed at least 170 pounds. It looked like a mix between a pit bull, a boxer, and a tosa, and it was aggressively trying to bolt across the street to engage a yappy Jack Russell Terrier that was barking from behind its chain-link fence. The girl was trying desperately to control her behemoth, but just ended up getting dragged across the street until the Jack Russell's owner heard the commotion and brought his dog inside. This sort of problem happens a lot more frequently than people realize.

This idea is for an enhanced dog licensing system that works in a similar method to driver licensing. You can't get a driver's license until you pass a test and demonstrate that you can safely handle a vehicle. And just because you have a driver's license doesn't mean you can safely handle very large trucks. You have to get a Commercial Driver's License, or CDL. There are many different size classes for large trucks, and for each class a different class of CDL is required, so you have to prove that you can handle each size of truck before you can drive one.

Just as there are many different size classes of trucks, there are many different sizes of dog breeds. They range from under 2 pounds to over 200 pounds. What I am proposing is a system of licensing that classifies breeds according to their average adult weight. For each size class, there is a required license class to be allowed to walk a dog of that class in public areas. There's no age restriction, or even weight restriction, for who can obtain a license, because some people of very diminutive stature are surprisingly capable of handling large animals.

Under this licensing system, if you wished to obtain a new dog, then every person in your household who plans to walk the dog off property would have to take a Handling Test with a specially trained dog of that size class. In the Handling test, you must walk the dog around a converted 1/4 mile running track, with simulated road crossings. At various points along the route, the dog will suddenly bolt off to the side, or start straining very hard on the leash. You must successfully retain your grip on the leash and not allow the dog to pull you more than 3 feet against your will. After a few seconds, the dog will calm down.

If at any point you lose control, then you may retake the test once. If you fail twice, you are legally restricted from walking any dog of that size class or larger, and may reapply after 90 days. What that means is that if Dad wants to buy a German Shepherd, but his son or daughter cannot pass the handling test for that breed size, then Dad is going to have to be the one to take Spot for his morning walks. If a police officer happens to witness a child or petite adult being dragged by a large dog, he's going to render assistance, of course. Then he's going to ask to see the handler's license.

If the handler doesn't have a license for that breed size, then a couple of things happen. The officer gives Fido and the handler a ride home. If anyone in the household has a license for that breed, they get a written warning not to let that person walk that dog anymore. If nobody in the household has a license for that breed size, they are issued a notice stating that they have 90 days for somebody in that household to get the appropriate license or find a new home for Fido*. After 90 days, if the dog is still there and nobody has the license, the dog gets removed from the premises.

*There is, however, an exception to this rule. If the dog's owner has a yard (minimum acceptable lawn area to be predetermined for each class) that is considered large enough for that breed, then they may keep the dog without a license. They just can't ever take the dog off the property unless they transport it in their vehicle or find someone who is appropriately licensed to handle the dog.

This new licensing system is intended to increase safety for both dogs and their owners. Dogs are required to be on leashes for several reasons. If the dog bolts out into traffic, he needs his handler to have a secure grip on his leash to prevent him from being killed. However, if the handler just gets dragged out into the road after the dog, then the dog and the handler are both endangered, and the leash law has proven that it's ineffective. That's not good for anybody. This system is designed to keep dogs *and* their owners out of harm's way.

Volunteer-run training classes would be available at no cost, in which aspiring large-breed owners can learn how to effectively and humanely handle their pets.
-- 21 Quest, May 07 2009

well I WAS prepared to say that this should be an annotation on the original...

mebbe I'll find an hour or so to read and digest.
-- po, May 08 2009


... i feel this version to be watered down. The car-metaphor version took some heavy flak for the supposed dog=thing equation, but contained two salient points : Backing around corner, and bringing to an emergency stop.

Walking a dog without a leash requires the owner to be able to recall the dog even when it is out of sight (around corner, in bush), and stopping it in it's tracks when it is doing something it is not supposed to do (friendly jumping on a frail old person, chasing onto a busy street, harrying wildlife). The Dog Licence should encompass proof that the owner is capable to do this, using nothing but his voice. Many dog owners think they can, but they tend to forget about the situations where they had to walk to the dog and take it's collar, or where the dog only stopped after the rabbit was out of it's sight, not after the owner called. This is comparable to a driver thinking to be able to back around a corner, and saying 'i told you i could' after placing five mirrors around the premises and leaving the vehicle two times...
-- loonquawl, May 08 2009


//the owner is capable to do this, using nothing but his voice//
So you'd have a temporary licence suspension for laryngitis?
-- coprocephalous, May 08 2009


Naw. It's not as if you were not still able to operate a car with a broken arm, right? If you can present a way the dog stays at heel without your voice (leash, RC, magic), the licence is not revoked, as the licence only confirms your ability to control your dog. Just as there are cars for the impaired, and the concurrent licence-small-print, the way you control your dog will have to fit your abilites.
-- loonquawl, May 08 2009


At last. A sensible, well thought out, workable solution. +
-- xenzag, May 08 2009


As far as controlling the dog without a leash goes, it's a moot point. Leash laws have been in effect in public areas for ages. While it's true that many folks choose to *ignore* that law and police officers have better things to do than enforce it as long as the animal is well-behaved, the law still stands. This would not change that. However, It needn't be a physical leash. If the dog is wearing a training collar (remote-control shock collar) or my Invisible Leash, that would be fine, too.
-- 21 Quest, May 08 2009


//... many folks choose to *ignore* that law and police officers have better things to do than enforce it...//
This important point rather undermines the utility of your proposed licensing scheme.
-- calum, May 08 2009


The reason police don't enforce it is because dogs that walk without leashes are almost always very well-behaved and stay right next to their handler. The officer has no reason to enforce it, the dog's clearly not threatening anybody and the owner can pull a leash out their pocket and attach it if requested to do so by an officer, and as long as they do that, and the dog didn't cause any problems beforehand, the officer's going to have a hard time explaining to a judge why he felt a fine was necessary. On the other hand, I bet many officers would be relieved to finally be able to do something about kids trying walk huge dogs. Currently there's no law that says a 5-year-old can't walk a Great Dane unsupervised. This needs to change.
-- 21 Quest, May 08 2009



random, halfbakery