If you do not train, socialise and contain your dog properly that is YOUR fault, it is YOUR fault if said dog then mauls or kills someone because you didn't contain it. A dog is a dog, they do dog things, it is up to us as their owners to do what is right by them.
A dog of any breed can be dangerous and if you want to own a dog then you need to be willing to take the proper precautions to make sure it is a well adjusted, well behaved dog who isn't running the streets. And if we do not take the proper precautions then we should be willing to cop the punishment if that dog does something to hurt a person.
In the end if you are a responsible owner then you don't have much to worry about. Even the irresponsible owners have very little to worry about because as with all animal related laws most of the time judges impose a much lighter sentence then the law allows for.
i did say that owners should do eveything they can to prevent an attack/dog getting loose, I didnt specify what preventions should be taken, therefore i would have thought it was implied that training etc was a thing that needed to be done. I'll be more specific next time. I am willing to that measures that lower the chances of my dogs biting someone as i already have. But as you said a dog is a dog, they do dog things....which is what i said in my post...every dog is an individual that feels and thinks. A car does not think of feel, your are 100% in control of the car and as much as people like to think (including me) that they are 100% in control of their dogs then they are deluded people who need to be sat down and told it is simply not possible, unless you just want to lock you dog in a room and tie it up while he is in there...with a muzzle and socks on to stop him scratching people when they go into his room.
I only bought up the car thing because the jail terms are the same and that is how they compared them in the article.
Obviously killing someone with dangerous driving is different but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have the ability to possibly sentence someone to 10 years for a fatal dog attack.
For instance someone who kills someone by dangerous driving is unlikely to get 10 years for their first offense especially if they have a good driving record with little to no driving offences against their name,where as if that person has previously caused harm to a person with dangerous driving and has multiple priors on their record then the courts should have the ability to charge that person harsher and possibly give them 10 years jail.
So should it be with dogs. If your dog kills someone but you are a responsible owner who has trained and socialised their dog, has good containment on their property, has never had any previous complaints about the dog wandering or attacking someone then the court can go lighter on them, but if your dog kills someone and you have spent no time socialising or training the dog, have shotty fencing, and have previously been in trouble for your dog wandering or attacking a person then the courts should have the option of charging you harsher, and bloody oaf this last hypothetical person should well and truly be in jail for a long time because someone died due to their negligence and lack of care.
As I said in my last post though, the chances of courts using the full 10 years is unlikely even in the most extreme cases which involve serious owner negligence, previous issues etc because courts rarely ever use their full power when it comes to Animal laws.
temperament tests mandatory for all breeding dogs, and all owners ought to have to have a licence, will not happen....pity.
At least as the law now stands it will seep down to many that they must be responsible their dogs or face very dire results.
Softly softly approaches regarding owners has not worked, nor has BSL dog attacks have increased since it was bought in.
I think it should be on a case by case basis. There are to many factors that come into play when a dog attacks someone. Its not black and white as in bad dog = bad owner.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.
Some owners are uneducated and shouldn't even be allowed to have a dog, like some people shouldn't be allowed to have children. If a dog got loose and mauled someone because they were mistreated, then I believe the owner should be sent to jail without a doubt. I just want to say for the record, not all obese people are victims of heart attacks, I am young and healthy, and had one in february, so it just goes to show that everything should be dealt individually, case by case.
In a perfect black and white world then yes,I am very much for punishing owners of dogs who injure the public. Problem is , its not a perfect black and white world.
Lets say , just for an example ; An owner that has taken every possible precaution to ensure their dog is well raised,well trained and well contained , goes to work one day .Whilst at work for whatever reason,kids or a storm say , somehow manage to allow your dog to escape its yard.
Now dog is at large and in all likelyhood is dealing with heightened anxiety levels and fear. Even the most well trained dog,that usually loves people will exhibit change when confronted with the big wide world. So then lets say someone ,probably a kid, decides they will try to catch your dog,or at least pat it.In doing so they increase the dogs uncertainity and fear levels , maybe backing it into a situation where it cannot flee from , therefor dog will attack instead,purely out of 'fear'.
No amount of training will prepare a dog for that.
So would you then be happy to do jail time because of it ?
( hope that made sense,havn't slept in like days and brain is rather mushy )
GageDesign Pet PhotographySite still in construction so will post link when it's finished.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)