"Large dog ownership licensing" is a great idea and it will definitely be an improvement over the current system.
- However -
what would the criteria be to determine whether or not someone is allowed to own a dog and how will you ensure after having obtained a license the licencee continues to be a responsible dog owner? eg. a dog left on its own in the backyard without any interaction with the outside world or socialization ceases to be a 'safe' dog. Even though the owner has demonstrated that he understands what is required of him and has a thorough knowledge of how to raise a dog in a safe way (and has therefore obtained a license) he simply does not go to the effort.
ie. more effort is required on part of the dog owner than knowledge alone and licencing fails to address that.
the only way to counter this is to require some kind of monthly/yearly check. who/what/how something like this is/can be funded I have no idea. I suppose we could always get rid of medicare because our dogs are far more important than sick people ;p Or something. I really don't know about this kind of thing.
While we're on the subject of doing things the old fashioned way I want to offer a simpler and much cheaper solution - why not just avoid people/dogs you think are irresponsible/dangerous?
- And one more thing and that is I've gone through my older posts and to my embarrassment I've realised I've worded my question wrong (why do you feel the need to differentiate between different types of dogs and not different types of dog owners?) - it should read - "why does there need to be a distinction between owning different sorts of dogs?" (this question is redundant now)
such a ridiculous mistake, sorry