Could Control Of Dogs Echo Gun Laws?
This is a follow up to the question I posted a few weeks back (which got deleted) about the child who was killed by a Rottweiler in Pasco County Florida.
According to the local law enforcement agency in this area of Florida the dog was only a year old, not neutered, had been owned for 2 months, was kept chained outside with it’s food bowl out of reach.
We have gun control laws, inacted in 1989 in Florida requiring gun owners to store firearms in a locked box or a container with a trigger lock if they had reasonable knowledge that a child younger than 15 could get access to the weapons. Adults can be held criminally negligent if the child gains access to the weapon and injures himself or another.
Now, the same thing is being proposed for dog owners who’s animal behavior results in injury or death of a human.
Quoting a law professor’s answer to the question: Could a similar law (referring to gun control) be applied to dog ownership?
Lynn Epstein (law professor) answers: “The potential for a dog to cause harm is often greatest risk due to conditions created by the owner”.
She also had written an article in 2006 titled “There are no bad dogs, only bad owners”.
Dog bite risks: Conditions that can increase the likelihood of dog aggression and can lead to attacks:
1) A dog kept on a chain or tether
2) Male dogs are unneutered
3) Inhumane treatment, including poor nutrition, health or isolating living conditions that prevent a dog from being socialized.
4) Sudden or actions toward or near the dog that provoke fear in the dog.
5) Introduction of new people, children or animals into the dog’s territory.
Mike Halkitis, assistant state attorney, contends you have to show that the owners had knowledge of the viciousness of the animal in order to prosecute the owners.
Kenneth Phillips, a California attorney says and I quote: “It is the behavior of people that causes dog bites and dog maulings and what I call canine homicides”.
These incidents have been called ‘horrible tragedies” and very few dog owners have been held accountable for their dog’s actions.
So, my question is should there be ‘dog control’ laws enacted? Prosecution of the owners and prison time?
Your thoughts, please.
Anyone who can pen an article titled “There are no bad dogs, only bad owners”, has missed one rather glaring point, GENETICS!
If the dog is royally fvcked up genetically, with an unstable temperament, it’s behavior will be unpredictable & possibly dangerous. Yes, environmental factors can stimulate an already existing tendency to a behavioral weakness, but it was always there in the dog.
You cannot change what nature gave the dog, only work with some dogs to control their behavior & euthanise others which would pose a real risk to the safety of their family. Owners should treat a dog like a dog, don’t ignore, tolerate or excuse any aggressive behavior & definitely don’t look at a dog through rose coloured glasses & think love, understanding & training will somehow magically *cure* an unsound temperament.
I agree with Indestructible’s point that you cannot legislate common sense into a vacuous brain & people will still purchase cheap unstable dogs, fail to supervise children & allow their dog’s behaivor to be a threat to others by not controlling it with training.
None of the five points would be an issue if it was a mentally sound, obedience trained dog, owned by a responsible, strong minded fair pack leader.
I can see a case for holding whoever was the responsible adult in charge of the dog criminally negligent is death or serious bodily injury resulted from a dog attack incident. If the punished bore more of a correlation to the serious nature of the crime, then perhaps more owners would behave responsibility……even not support back yard breeders & pet shops with their cash & save for a well bred, mentally sound dog {well, I can dream}.
I agree with Indestructible. Remember what happened with Prohibition? The drug wars? What’s happening now with BSL? Same exact thing.
yes, irresponsible dog owners should be treated in a similar way to irresponsible gun owners. If you cannot properly take care of something that has the ability to cause damage to your community then you should be held responsible.
I’m a little dubious about some of the premises. For example, are they saying that a dog shouldn’t be tethered EVER? I know there are some people that believe that, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons for tethering a dog for periods of time.
Also, there is the premise that unneutered dogs are more likely to bite. Statistically, yes, but correlation is not causation. The reason unneutered dogs are more likely to bite is that they are more likely to be owned by irresponsible owners, since due to the massive public awareness on the subject “responsible” owners are more likely to spay/neuter, socialize and train their dogs. So it is not the fact that the dog has his testicles, it is the fact that he is owned by an idiot, and most macho idiots prefer male, unneutered, aggressive dogs.
“Sudden actions”? I can be held criminally liable for making “sudden actions” around a dog?
“Introduction of new people, children or animals into the dog’s territory”. Again, with a normal, responsibly owned and trained dog this is not a problem.
I think they need to reconsider this.
OK – I’ll start off with saying I don’t agree with more laws – but this actually makes sense. A way to hold accountable the owner for their dog’s behaviors.
Here is what I fear thou – in a lot of cases it will be very difficult to prove that the person did something to make that dog aggressive or get proof that they knew that their dog was dangerous. It also in no way takes into account the dogs who are just genetically weak.
Until they can better define the law and how they would go about proving animal abuse when it isn’t so “obvious” – like lack of socialization…..then I think that the laws need to wait.
Prohibition NEVER works.
Never has,never will.
You can’t legislate brains or ethics.
Did you hear that when Australia swept through & confiscated firearms from LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS,the crime rate went UP 300-400 %???
Did you know that you are 30times MORE likely to kill yourself by falling in the bathtub than bitten?
TEN times more likely to die from INSECT BITES/STINGS…struck by lightning?
That the media fans the FEARS of the sheep-like humans…because BOOGIE-DOG-ATTACKS sell better?
More laws won’t “save” anybody….they’re just ink on paper.