I guess if you think about it, 90% or more, of our laws are engineered to apply after the act - drink and drive and the law gets you, shoot someone and the law gets you, steal and the law gets you, fail to register your dog and the law gets you - so I see little difference in having legislation that applies after someone is irresponsible enough to allow his dog to bite someone.
Penalties themselves are not a guarantee, I understand that. You only need to see the stats on how many people drive unregistered vehicles, or drive unlicenced or whilst suspended, but if you look at the penalties these cases attract then this class of person will continue to drive unlicenced - because the sentence is not prohibitive enough. It will also show that most of these unlicenced drivers drove because they had little choice. There was no public transport near them, or they were sole care giver and needed to go to the pharmacy - whatever.
A little different with dog ownership. You do not need to own a dog. It is not a work tool. Owning a dog is a personal choice and with that we hope comes the responsibility to do the right thing by the dog. If you fail in that responsibility then the penalties have to be real and painfull.
Border River Pet Resort