Philosophy Explorer wrote:I often wonder whether the owners understand responsibility in these situations. It seems that many are blind to the potential violence of their "pets."
PhilX
Here in the U.K, when the Dangerous Dogs Act was legislated, in 1991, it was a knee jerk reaction to a spate of attacks on children. It covered mainly fighting dogs, like pit bulls or similar, which were originally bred to bait/fight bull for sport and then dogs, when the bull baiting/ fighting was made illegal in the 1800's. These dogs were bred with aggression, low pain threshold and to fight to the death. This was potential that could not be realised without training and trained dogs would not be trained to attack humans. Well trained fight dogs can have amazing relationships with people. However, in the modern age, they became status symbols for a certain type of male: your would-be and actual gangsters. Many were idiots and trained their dogs to be attack dogs, without operating the due care and consideration needed when taking these dogs out in public.
It's people that make these dogs bad. I'm not the greatest animal lover. I've met dogs I've adored but I'm not into all canines. I'm taking more the RSPCA's stance in response to the original bill, which they felt aggressively punitive to the animals and not punitive enough to the owners. The act was pushed through quickly, as a result of the media attention in response to the child attacks and regulates to fine owners, with a maximum penalty of two years should the owner's animal harm people. The dogs, of course, are put down should anyone get hurt. I'm not entirely certain of the following fact but I think it calls for all dogs, of the fighting breeds, to be neutered.
My teenage son was skating past a dog owner on his skateboard, recently, and must have startled the dog, a bull terrier of some kind, who jumped up and sank his teeth into his arm. The woman that owned him, had him on a leash, but it was an extendable leash and it was set too long. She did nothing, said nothing, to my son but walked on quickly. My son immediately took a picture of the wound and when I pointed out it might have been better to take a picture of the owner and the dog, the look on his face told me, "Yeah, but it's not as good to share that with my mates. This is more manly!"
We reported the incident to the police, over the phone, who advised we make a formal report and sent a police officer to our home to take an account of what happened. The police rep who took the call, was very keen we make a formal report. The call handlers aren't actually usually otrained officers. The trained officer who came round was much more jaded. The first words out of his mouth were, "I'll tell you now, this probably won't go very far." "Fair enough,"I said, "...but don't you think that its valuable you be given a description of both dog and owner if it happens again?" He took the interview as if he wasn't that convinced.
I wouldn't want a dog put down for biting a person that startled it, but if it was a repeat offender, that is different. That dog has not been trained well by its owner and may well be of some danger to the public. If the owner can't control it, it needs to be taken away, retrained if possible and put down, if too much of a danger.The Dangerous Dog Act did not provide for this kind of thinking. It's a shame because most pets have a therapeutic effect on their owners, possibly society as a whole by extension.
