So what's the point of licensing, registering and micro-chipping the dog then, if a jail sentence is still the penalty for a dog attack irrespective of whether the above has been done?
The dog can be lost or stolen, and if out loose and captured after attacking someone, the owner can be traced and the circumstances investigated.
Still doesn't negate the effectiveness of a jail sentence threat for concentrating the minds of dog owners to muzzle their mutt.
You stated all dogs should be licensed, etc, then state even if they aren't, the owner will receive a jail sentence anyway. Can you clarify why the need for the licensing. And how will the licensing prevent the dog attack (I imagine we'd want to prevent dog attacks rather than come up with harsher penalties for those that attack?)
Actually I never mentioned "licensing etc". You may be confusing me with someone else. But I do agree with it, and answered that question above.
Brilliant idea. However, just one teeny-tiny problem. Let's assume that someone chooses not to register, licence nor microchip their dog. This person also chooses not to muzzle their dog. Let's continue with this jaunt down Assumption Boulevard and assume that this dog attacked someone. Firstly, how does all this expense, legislation and effort implementing such a system help prevent the dog attack in the first place (obviously prevention is better than cure)?
It doesn't does it? It's a nice idea, penalise all the thousands of law abiding, responsible owners of non-dangerous dogs while the owners who are more likely to have dangerous dogs don't bother wasting any money on these schemes so the plan falls flat on its face from day one.
Back to the drawing board methinks.
You sound exactly like those who opposed the seat belt being made a legal requirement.
Yes the odd idiot doesn't obey the law and someone suffers however there are also many lives saved because of it's existence.
A staffordshire bull terrier did it and she also owned it.
And?
The fundamental point of the OP is that we need a muzzling law to stop these incidents.
As they've utterly ignored more than three times now, most of these incidents happen on private property where such a law wouldn't apply.
As has also been pointed out, those people who don't give much of a toss about being responsible dog owners and careful about whether they take on an illegal breed, probably aren't going to follow a muzzling law.
So the question is, why go to the expense and rigmarole of devising and enforcing a law which offers zilch in terms of preventing these kinds of cases?
The fundamental point of the OP is that we need a muzzling law to stop these incidents.
As they've utterly ignored more than three times now, most of these incidents happen on private property where such a law wouldn't apply.
As has also been pointed out, those people who don't give much of a toss about being responsible dog owners and careful about whether they take on an illegal breed, probably aren't going to follow a muzzling law.
So the question is, why go to the expense and rigmarole of devising and enforcing a law which offers zilch in terms of preventing these kinds of cases?
If people choose to own these dogs and get attacked in their own home, that is the risk they take.
The general public should not have to face that risk though,
If people choose to own these dogs and get attacked in their own home, that is the risk they take.
The general public should not have to face that risk though,
Eh!? I don't think it acceptable that the family and visitors to such people should have to face that risk either!
The point is a muzzling law would not have prevented the vast majority of the serious incidents we've been hearing about - whether on private premises or in public.
I came here to try to get in first with the "pair of shoes" gag, but KL just pipped me. Ah well, the golden age of internet oneupmanship draws to a close.
You should be declawed for that.
OP, as already mentioned it would likely not have made much difference, as if it turns out to be a pit bull, the owner has already broken the law so isn't likely to bother conforming to any proposed laws on dog ownership either.
Eh!? I don't think it acceptable that the family and visitors to such people should have to face that risk either!
The point is a muzzling law would not have prevented the vast majority of the serious incidents we've been hearing about - whether on private premises or in public.
Ouch, those injuries sound horrific. Poor woman. She must have been terrified.
I wish certain dog owners would take more responsibility in keeping their dog safe in these situations, like getting them trained to respond to commands to keep them out of trouble. Some dog owners just don't care though and allow their dogs to do what they want or encourage aggressive behaviour.
I feel terrible for the poor woman who was attacked by this dog. It points to one clear thing IMO: a bad owner who did not train their animal/treat it with proper care and respect.
I also feel that you cannot judge every dog or owner by the behaviour of a few. A well-trained, under control (eg. on a lead) dog is not a threat to anyone. I know people will say 'but dogs are unpredictable/you can never be sure', but surely that's the same for humans and lots of other animals too?
Yet another story about one of these bloody dogs. I have had dogs all my life but would never own one of these type. I don't know how many arguments have started on here with people sticking up for these aresholes and the bloody dogs
If you choose to own a dog with massive jaws then you are taking a big risk imo.
Indeed Jackie, Ive been on these threads with you many times before and youre the only one that can see sense. There will probably be another thread on this topic again in a fortnight... and the aresholes will still stick up for these dogs
Indeed Jackie, Ive been on these threads with you many times before and youre the only one that can see sense. There will probably be another thread on this topic again in a fortnight... and the aresholes will still stick up for these dogs
See, the thing is, good dog owners keep their dogs on a lead in public places, good owners muzzle their dogs in public, if they're known to be a bit snappy. Good owners don't leave dogs unattended with babies and small children, no matter how lovely and well trained their dogs are because good owners are aware that their dog is still an unpredictable animal and that it is better to be safe then sorry,
It's the shitty owners we have to be wary of and they are the types not to take any notice of any laws such as dog licenses, leads in public places or muzzles. You can bring out any law you like but those types will ignore it. Most dog attacks do happen in the home rather than in public anyway. All we can do is make sure that the owners of these dogs get very lengthy sentences when their dog attacks, not a fine but a proper jail sentence.
See, the thing is, good dog owners keep their dogs on a lead in public places, good owners muzzle their dogs in public, if they're known to be a bit snappy. Good owners don't leave dogs unattended with babies and small children, no matter how lovely and well trained their dogs are because good owners are aware that their dog is still an unpredictable animal and that it is better to be safe then sorry,
It's the shitty owners we have to be wary of and they are the types not to take any notice of any laws such as dog licenses, leads in public places or muzzles. You can bring out any law you like but those types will ignore it. Most dog attacks do happen in the home rather than in public anyway. All we can do is make sure that the owners of these dogs get very lengthy sentences when their dog attacks, not a fine but a proper jail sentence.
See, the thing is, good dog owners keep their dogs on a lead in public places, good owners muzzle their dogs in public, if they're known to be a bit snappy. Good owners don't leave dogs unattended with babies and small children, no matter how lovely and well trained their dogs are because good owners are aware that their dog is still an unpredictable animal and that it is better to be safe then sorry,
It's the shitty owners we have to be wary of and they are the types not to take any notice of any laws such as dog licenses, leads in public places or muzzles. You can bring out any law you like but those types will ignore it. Most dog attacks do happen in the home rather than in public anyway. All we can do is make sure that the owners of these dogs get very lengthy sentences when their dog attacks, not a fine but a proper jail sentence.
I disagree. I think if they are clearly breaking the law people (including other dog owners) will report them and the police (or people working for the council) can take action.
I agree that at the moment people do own illegal breeds,but they "get away with it" because it is so hard to tell what is legal and what is illegal. How many people have been prosecuted for owning a pit bull that hasn't attacked anyone?
Comments
The dog can be lost or stolen, and if out loose and captured after attacking someone, the owner can be traced and the circumstances investigated.
Still doesn't negate the effectiveness of a jail sentence threat for concentrating the minds of dog owners to muzzle their mutt.
Actually I never mentioned "licensing etc". You may be confusing me with someone else. But I do agree with it, and answered that question above.
You sound exactly like those who opposed the seat belt being made a legal requirement.
Yes the odd idiot doesn't obey the law and someone suffers however there are also many lives saved because of it's existence.
And?
The fundamental point of the OP is that we need a muzzling law to stop these incidents.
As they've utterly ignored more than three times now, most of these incidents happen on private property where such a law wouldn't apply.
As has also been pointed out, those people who don't give much of a toss about being responsible dog owners and careful about whether they take on an illegal breed, probably aren't going to follow a muzzling law.
So the question is, why go to the expense and rigmarole of devising and enforcing a law which offers zilch in terms of preventing these kinds of cases?
If people choose to own these dogs and get attacked in their own home, that is the risk they take.
The general public should not have to face that risk though,
You're right, I was. Sorry about that.
Eh!?
The point is a muzzling law would not have prevented the vast majority of the serious incidents we've been hearing about - whether on private premises or in public.
You should be declawed for that.
OP, as already mentioned it would likely not have made much difference, as if it turns out to be a pit bull, the owner has already broken the law so isn't likely to bother conforming to any proposed laws on dog ownership either.
True.
What the .. ? How many people would you say on average choose to get attacked in their own homes ?
I agree with Rancidbeings and TrollHunter. An enforced muzzle law would not solve the issue,
If you choose to own a dog with massive jaws then you are taking a big risk imo.
Not to come across as trite, but all dogs have powerful jaws and teeth. Some more than others of course. However, my point still stands.
That's never going to happen (for all the usual reasons that dog lovers trot out).
But gagging childrens' mouths with adhesive tape so they can't talk is perfectly acceptable! (In fact some parents welcomed it on the other thread.)
Crazy.
I wish certain dog owners would take more responsibility in keeping their dog safe in these situations, like getting them trained to respond to commands to keep them out of trouble. Some dog owners just don't care though and allow their dogs to do what they want or encourage aggressive behaviour.
I also feel that you cannot judge every dog or owner by the behaviour of a few. A well-trained, under control (eg. on a lead) dog is not a threat to anyone. I know people will say 'but dogs are unpredictable/you can never be sure', but surely that's the same for humans and lots of other animals too?
I completely disagree that all dogs should be muzzled, thats just ridiculous
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-26519332
so it is the breed not the owner
Never seems to be a Labrador or a Poodle involved , does it ?
To be fair, it could be both. If it turns out that he didn't care to keep the dog under safe control in public then he'd be at blame too.
Really?:
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1295350
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003849/Boy-3-left-horrific-facial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/labrador-shot-and-killed-after-attacking-toddler-maine
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2012/05/poodle_and_its_owner_trouble_after_attack_pit_bull
Indeed Jackie, Ive been on these threads with you many times before and youre the only one that can see sense. There will probably be another thread on this topic again in a fortnight... and the aresholes will still stick up for these dogs
Interesting debating style.
Anyone who disagrees with me is an arsehole.
Only those who agree with me can see sense.
Yes, you've clearly not read my posts. I love dogs (most of) these are dogs that will constantly be in the press until someone sees sense.
It's the shitty owners we have to be wary of and they are the types not to take any notice of any laws such as dog licenses, leads in public places or muzzles. You can bring out any law you like but those types will ignore it. Most dog attacks do happen in the home rather than in public anyway. All we can do is make sure that the owners of these dogs get very lengthy sentences when their dog attacks, not a fine but a proper jail sentence.
Indeed
I agree that at the moment people do own illegal breeds,but they "get away with it" because it is so hard to tell what is legal and what is illegal. How many people have been prosecuted for owning a pit bull that hasn't attacked anyone?