No, I'm really just annoyed at them barking at me when I walk down the street. I probably don't really feel that way about them, I'm sure there are positives to dogs and dog ownership, I know historically there have been great uses for dogs as human companions. But I'm not convinced those uses are fully realized nowadays. I had an inherent fear of dogs from when I was very young, a friend of my parents thought it was funny to have his dogs chase me down the street. Over the years I mostly got over it. There was even a period where I really wanted a Shiba Inu because they're such beautiful dogs. But intermixed with that I started walking a lot, partially for work, partially just because I love walking. I cannot tell you one experience I've had in a suburban neighborhood where a Dog just charges the gate and barks at you. when you're not prepared for it it's a huge shock to the system and even when you notice the dog and brace for it it's no fun. However, that's just the dog's nature, what can we seriously do about it? they're territorial, even a well raised dog is still going to bark at you when you're on the sidewalk (and often across the street). So it's kind of become a thought experiment for me, what if we ended the domestication of the dog? Is it inherently selfish for me to think, would any breed of dog survive? etc etc. Also it's a great answer for "most controversial opinion"
Thank you for the literal lolNo, I'm really just annoyed at them barking at me when I walk down the street.
Here in the city, people generally tend to get their dogs trained properly. I used to be weary about them (okay, I still am) but I have warmed up to passing them now-a-days. As long as you don't give the dogs eye contact they tend to go about their business. There are even people who have their beasts trained so well that they can walk them without a leash with tons of people walking about and go into a store without having to worry about the dog bothering others or running off. What made me feel a little more at ease about the whole dog situation is this one guy who had a pitbull that I was sure was going to go after a cat that a store owner owned completely, entirely disregarded the cat. For a few seconds I felt I was seeing things. It nonchalantly walked by, leash-less and sat at the side of the front door waiting for the owner to return. I lived in the suburbs in Texas, though, and it is a completely different aspect. I know exactly where you are coming from with this view. I would change to the opposite side of the street (and that is a good four lanes) to avoid peoples' crazed dogs. They would bark before you even realized a dog was trotting on your path. Ending the domestication is a vague concept, though. How would one go about this? Would we have to 'put down' millions of house-trained dogs (and I use this term very loosely) individually? Where would the money to do something on such a vast scale come from (taxpayers/owners)? People would definitely feel as if their freedoms are being threatened, seeing that any regulation is usually heavily dreaded. "Why do I have to pay for something that I do not own?" "Why do I have to pay for something I do not want?" Would it be systematic genocide of an entire race of animal? Wild dogs are rare enough as it is (at least, to my understanding). If we were to not kill the house-trained animals and let them roam free in the wild, it raises the possibility of them roaming free and unrestricted. Possibly hostile due to them being abandoned, hungry and left to die. The dogs would get diseases and spread disease. There would be millions of unaccounted dead carcasses peppered across the country (world). If you think flies are annoying now, imagine enough flies to feast upon these dogs that have had days and weeks to breed and thrive from the dead dogs. Now, imagine these same flies that have bred and gained in mass numbers with little to nothing left to feast on, having to scavenge for food once again but now with increased numbers and less food sources. It'd be a complete disaster. I guess you could, over the years, eradicate all of the dogs. Though, it would be too much trouble. You would have to create a fair system to choose which dogs are to be killed or there will be people calling racism and sexism. There will be those who cause trouble because their next-door neighbor can own a cat; a bird. I'm sure there are many more angles that I haven't addressed but the fact that there are so many show that this is highly improbable. Your opinion is understood and shared. Though, it is an unrealistic goal to accomplish within our lifetimes so we are better off learning to cope with it.
"Here in the city, people generally tend to get their dogs trained properly" is a blanket statement with several qualifiers. In Chicago alone there are dozens of dog "rescues", and many of the dogs are sourced from negligent owners living in the city. Anecdotally, I had neighbors who were young, educated, wealthy white males who owned a dog for whom they could not provide adequate care - due to their schedules and priorities, the dog became the landlord's primary responsibility. There were times I fed and watered the dog out of concern for the dog's well-being, and I'm the furthest thing from a fan of most dogs (for similar reasons to OP). That said, it would have been presumptuous and rude to 'report' their negligence and get the dog taken away either by a rescue or animal control, and so I didn't. I doubt this was a unique scenario.
That is unfortunate. It seems to me that for every one dog that is owned and taken care for responsibly, a litter of them are mistreated. Since people aren't showing that they are capable, in majority, of treating dogs (or any animals) with respect, there should be requirements to own them. In correlation, making hefty consequences for abuse would deter some animal abusers. Just like with owning a car (it still doesn't seem to do much) you should have to get a license before owning an animal. Not everyone is fit to own one. I guess the same could be said for a lot of things. Children. People should have to show proof that they will be able to take care of the child. There are a lot of instances of what /should/ be regulated as opposed to what is and what is infringing on our "rights". Honestly, sometimes I feel that people use the word more as a weapon and could care less about what it ultimately stands for. Alright, I'm getting off the main topic now. New York City is the city I was referring to, my apologies, I should have specified.
For the most part I agree re: licensing. Not sure how I feel about that in re: children, but it's probably needed for domestic pets, cats and dogs alike. The current scheme hints at it, what with screening and that sort of thing, but it's rather superficial; you're asked "do you have a home?", "do you have a job?", "can you care for this animal?" and if you answer in the affirmative to each you're free to go. No apology needed - apologize, myself, if it was implied :)