It should require a license or class to own an animal, amirite?

I'll play devil's advocate: shelters are already overcrowded and adding another barrier is going to make it exponentially worse. You're going to have an unthinkable number of euthanized animals.

by RealisticStop3066 2 days ago

Having a license imposed wouldn't keep people from abusing their animals.

by Formal_Cod_6378 2 days ago

It would probably just make having a pet harder for poor people

by olsongeo 2 days ago

Could argue that it'll reduce the people unintentionally abusing their animals, which is what OP is talking about mostly.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

i want a license to own a human

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I assume you havent read The Giver

by Anonymous 2 days ago

i don't want a child

by Anonymous 2 days ago

So eugenics then

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Mental stability and understanding of how to properly raise a human eugenics?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

The moment you start putting limitations on who can and cannot have children is eugenics. You're opening Pandora's box at that point.

by Nikkigreenholt 2 days ago

Any limitations on who is allowed to have children is a form of eugenics. Declaring people mentally unfit to have children is textbook eugenics lol

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Once we start denying the right to reproduce to one group, others are sure to follow. It's starts with the mental instable. Then it's people with physical disabilities, then the poor and so on and so forth.

by Impressive_Spell_457 2 days ago

So the rights of a mentally unstable person who abuses or neglects their child are protected. Great. What about the child being abused, where is the protection of their rights?

by Similar-Statement 2 days ago

How do you predict if someone will be a danger? Listen, I know it sounds very appealing and an easy way to prevent abuse - but if you deny one group the right to bare children, then others will follow. I know it sounds like and extreme case, but the Holocaust started in small increments, just like this. In fact during the Holocaust people were forcibly sterilized. Who gets to decide who is as isn't mentally unstable? Is it just that they have a mental disorder? Who policies it? Welcome to inreased underground child trafficking. Desperate and rich people who want children will start paying for them. People will start having children for profit. This is how really bad thing start. First it's mentally unstable. Then people of lower socioeconomic stations. Then people with physical disabilities. The argument could be made for anyone - so whoever the current government doesn't like would be under fire.

by Impressive_Spell_457 2 days ago

You need to pass an evaluation to adopt an already existing child, why don't we have that for parents that want to birthe a child?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

If this is an unpopular opinion, it certainly shouldn't be one. I agree fully. Having an animal is a PRIVILEGE not a right. And it's our responsibility to properly educate ourselves in order to provide them the best life possible.

by Auerrosetta 2 days ago

A privilege eh? There are rescues and shelters that are over run to the point where they euthanize animals. So you suggest that is a better situation than the privilege of owning a pet

by Anonymous 2 days ago

How much of overflowing shelters and rescues is due to bad pet ownership?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Maybe it's due to over breeding? You know the actual reason as to why we have too many shelter dogs

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Wouldn't more responsible pet owners neuter and spay their animals? Wouldn't they be less likely to surrender their animal because they know the commitment and investment. Like there are people who get parrots without knowing that they have the same lifespan as a human. So I assume the average knowledge of dogs and cats is not that much higher to most pet owners. Like I assume most people do not actually crate train their puppies or set them up for success by getting them used to us being around their mouth(to brush teeth) and around their legs so they are calm during hygiene time. Even introducing to bathing is huge for a puppy. Most people barely get to sit and mostly just rely on "no" and being aggressive. When their pet has an accident they get mad? Bad owners are the cause of the overpopulation because they drive the market to supply the pets. But yes the breeders should be regulated too.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Pet owners and breeders are not the same thing

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Backyard breeders are bad pet owners. Making people take a class on proper pet ownership before being able to have a pet, would cut down on the backyard breeders. The good people who are ignorant now know they shouldn't breed, and the irresponsible people who breed anyway have a higher chance of getting the pets taken away since they passed the class and should know better

by mohrmilton 2 days ago

So we shouldn't do anything to rectify the situation?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yes

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Now switch animal to child. We do not expect parents to get training or a license to have children

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Perhaps we should. But it's an extremely different circumstance. Bearing children is written into our DNA. It's one of our core functions as people, having pets is not. And restricting basic human function is a very dangerous game to start playing. It's not a comparable thing to compare adopting a pet with reproducing our own species. It's certainly something we should do. Taking children away from abusive parents is something I'm sure we can all agree on. But certain areas are very grey and while I'm guessing we'd probably agree on the general principals of things, we'd almost certainly disagree on where to draw lines as we'd all have our own different opinions. But certainly, I'm sure we can agree that those lines will differ for where we think having children will be from where we think having a pet cat should be.

by Glittering-Head-2617 2 days ago

Yeah, one is a human being and one isn't. Hmmmm, I wonder which should have proper training

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yeah, I'm certain that you have no clue what a privilege is. Do you think it was my privilege to rescue my Rottweiler from definite euthanasia, or do you think she was privileged to still be alive and have a loving home

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I mostly agree, but my concern is that we'd still have an overcrowding problem with too many strays to find homes for, except even less people would go out of their way to get a license just to get an animal.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yeah with you on that. In theory this is a good idea, but I live in an area with a huge cat overpopulation problem where most people get their cats through the "cat distribution system" and it would probably just cause there to be more strays if there was a barrier to entry.

by OppositeTomorrow 2 days ago

Isn't the lack of proper care for animals due to lack of education the cause of the amount of strays? Assuming a first-world country too more people would get their animals neutered/spayed too right?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

You'd really hope that would be the case, but especially in the US, you'd be pretty disappointed.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

The cause of too many strays is too many breeders and not enough homes.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I'll back you if you can prove your assertion that most people mistreat their animals. Because I don't see any evidence of mistreatment being that widespread.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yes and also ban all breeding for specific breeds in all animals! 50% of the people who have pets should not have them.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

All breeds have health problems due to overbreeding. You can have mixed dogs do all those tasks, breeding is disgusting and should be outlawed everywhere.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Breeders are unethical, no matter if they do it in a backyard or on a bigger scale.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I think your take is much more naive. If something cannot breathe well or its eyes have a tendency to pop out then it's cruel to create more. Would you really rather breeders continue to factory just because some would still do it? That's like arguing against vaccines by saying that not everyone can be vaccinated so theirs no point in getting vaccinated.

by Impressive_Spell_457 2 days ago

For some reason I kind of agree with you people don't treat their animals right

by haliehodkiewicz 2 days ago

I'd take it a step further and say this logic should apply to having children as well

by Ucremin 2 days ago

Why tf is so many people's solution to problems "get the government involved"? The government is the CAUSE of most of the problems in the world. More government absolutely isn't the solution to those problems.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Libertarians are exhausting

by RealisticStop3066 2 days ago

Okay so... remove animal protection laws?

by Optimal-Rip 2 days ago

That's a different discussion entirely. See my other reply regarding personal discipline and responsibility as it pertains to someone actually seeking out any kind of proactive license to own an animal.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I live in a city where it is the law to register your pet and get a permit. Who do you think I pay if I choose to not tell the city that i own a dog. Do you think city workers are coming and checking on dogs

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Well it would certainly discourage it. What if your neighbour is concerned and tells police?

by Optimal-Rip 2 days ago

Might be idk, but still, it would discourage normal families from spontaneously getting a pet.

by Optimal-Rip 2 days ago

No it wouldn't, they just wouldn't pay the fee.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yes it would lol

by Optimal-Rip 2 days ago

It‘s not about government interference. It‘s about people not being able to care for their animal. There is not a conspiracy in everything man…

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I mean then that would be illegal and probably prosecuted in some kind of way. You could say the same things about gun control…

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Are you an american conservative? That would explain the amount of paranoia. You literally described what governments do if people don‘t live by the laws that exist already. I‘m for police abolishment as it is right now, but even I can see that you‘re saying whacky stuff lol

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Illegal? But you just said it wasn't up to government to interfere. So now I'm confused

by Anonymous 2 days ago

And yet there are countless illegal guns everywhere in America

by olsongeo 2 days ago

Who would issue said license?

by Fluid_Isopod 2 days ago

Would it be bad if it was the government?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Your entire argument is that it wouldn't be government interference.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

The specific veterinary association for that area, but i don‘t know how that works in weird countries like the US lol

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Who do you think would control animal licensing? Just some random group of people

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I'm sure something like that wouldn't just devolve into some kind of kickback scheme that borders on outright money laundering.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

And poor people getting excluded while plenty of rich people get pet licenses and abuse or mistreat animals anyway

by olsongeo 2 days ago

It's like vehicle inspections. They sound good in theory, and lord knows I'd like to see all those rolling unmaintained wrecks off the road. The problem is it either turned into a shakedown racket for the shop (get this fixed at our shop now, or we won't give you the sticker) or shopping around for the "right" inspector who would accept a "tip" for their service and might just "miss" something on your car.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

How about the responsible veterinary association or whatever people in america have for that?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Ok, Ron Swanson

by Delicious-Tear 2 days ago

But not children?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

That equals eugenics

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I agree 100%, especially dog owners. You should be required to take your dog to training or prove that you are able to train your dog on your own.

by Edwinrenner 2 days ago

This just isn't a plausible solution. Firstly it would limit how many people can have pets and would probably come down to who has more money. All this would do is fill shelters even more.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Should be the same for kids

by Cautious_Chest 2 days ago

Damn - it should be this way to have children too

by West_Series 2 days ago

Most logical unpopular opinion ever

by cristopherterry 2 days ago

Think about what would go into implementing a requirement for a pet owner license. Plenty of people would refuse to get licensed and would not give up their pets. Me, for example. I'm not gonna hand some bureaucrat $50 every so many years to keep the ability I already have. You can try to take my pet guinea pig from me but I will defend it with deadly force. I value my relationship with my pet more than I value the lives of random people I don't know who threaten to take it from me. There are many people who would do exactly as I would.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I agree! And the larger the animal, the more intense the licensing requirements

by Anonymous 2 days ago

The number of pups and kitten returned because they got too big or are no longer cute is insane. People should be fined for it if there were a class/license given like you said.

by erdmanbulah 2 days ago

Yeah lots of people abandon their pets to the elements already, this would just fuel it. Maybe the worst is with cats, since many people think it's acceptable to let them roam outside anyway. People think they're tough enough to rough it in the streets when they really aren't. There's also reasonable reasons to rehome an animal. Onset of severe allergies, health emergencies, etc…

by Fluffy_Cause 2 days ago

I adopted a cat 11 years ago who had been returned. The reason was that he required too much attention. He's sitting on my shoulder as I type this.

by hildadavis 1 day ago

It's a lose lose I agree. But happens all too often.

by erdmanbulah 1 day ago

Y E S. Sure, there would be some problems with it, especially depending on who controls it. But if done well, it would fix so many welfare issues. And honestly, public safety issues when it comes to dogs.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Please explain. Should they put down the dogs that you find aren't trained properly? Who gets to decide what person should be allowed to own a pet

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I think what I am understanding, is that if a dog has a bite record or a history of aggression, more than likely they will be put down. Shelters are already overflowed with animals, there's no point keeping a dog who requires extensive training and a particular owner who is willing to put in that work. It is sad of course. Also, usually the shelters decide who they adopt their animals out to. Even that is a lengthy process.

by Addie75 1 day ago

I'll agree with you when the requirements to have a kid are the same.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Wow, giving the government power over who can and can't have children…why didn't Hitler think of that?

by olsongeo 1 day ago

So you want stringent rules in place for having pets but NOT kids? Is that what you're saying? Your pet is more important than your child? Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain it to me like I'm 5.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Oi! Ewe got a loisense fer dat doggo mate?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

A dog licence in the UK or Ireland is similar to the TV licence. It's just a tax, there are no actual requirements to get it.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Shocking

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I think we need to move a step further with all animals and insects give them right to their land, protect and preserve, cats and dogs should be only raised at homes, no one should roam the streets. Some people should be allowed to have animals in their home, others can look at them at some cafes and sanctuaries. We are losing species of animals and insects every day, the last ones in the whole galaxy. Everything can be lost in the next 30 years. We need to move, people! We need to broaden our views on what ours and need protection. Not you vs other nationalities, Not we vs nature. We vs nothing

by Anonymous 1 day ago