New guidelines have been introduced to the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 which means that owners of dogs that cause death or serious injury could now face a two year prison sentence.
This is in response to a number of recent cases where children or babies have been attacked when left alone with a pet dog. The dogs responsible were usually a type of terrier that has very strong jaws and a persistent attitude.
Some owners of dangerous dogs claim "My dog would never attack a child. He loves my kids and plays with them all the time". But it is the responsibility of a dog owner not to put a child's life at risk and the new guidelines should make owners more aware of possible risks, not only to lie but also to their own freedom.
I do not think it is ever good to go away and leave a child with a dog, especially a smaller child. They often don't know what will hurt the dog, and don't realize that is what they are doing when they grab the dogs ear or lip, or another tender area.
Any dog can be pushed enough to defend himself, and the only way they can do that is to escape or attack. If they are in a room where they can't get out, then the child is apt to get bit.
And that does not even address the issue that some dogs, like the Pitt bulls, seems to be a lot more apt to attack than many other breeds. There definitely needs to be a change in people's attitudes about the danger of these breeds, and going to prison may be what it takes.
A dog may be nice but it is still an animal and humans cannot fully understand animals. I do not think anybody knows what goes on in an animals mind. At the most we can only assume. It is best to play safe and not leave babies or kids alone with dogs to begin with. It is also best to prohibit other kids (or for that matter other people) from touching or going near your dog no matter how nice he is. One accident or attack could destroy your dog's life and yours too. There should be a clause in those guidelines that if parents permit their kids to go near or touch your dog despite your warning, it's the parents that should go to jail if something bad happens. If you are responsible for your dog, parents should be responsible for their kids.
I'm glad to see that (as far as I can tell) this isn't directed at one particular breed of dog. One of my dogs is a pit bull - a breed that I was previously terrified of, but this dog was dumped on me. He was a puppy and we've been to obedience classes. He's a little over a year old now and the sweetest, most laid back, well behaved dog. To be honest I still wouldn't be comfortable around a pit I did not know, but that's true of most big/very strong dogs.
I do hate though to see pit bull's targeted in these type of laws (which doesn't seem to be the case in this law). I have another dog a small yorkie-terrier mix that is very prone to snapping. He could never be left with a child. Of course the difference between him biting and the pit biting is a minor owie and possible death, but I still think owners of all sizes of dogs need to be more aware and held responsible.
Too often little dogs are excused for being snappy because in most case their bite doesn't do much damage. But a bite from a small dog can get infected, scar, or make a child afraid of dogs. I hope more places that institute Dangerous Dog Laws include all dogs in their laws.
(08-15-2013, 02:06 PM)bluekittymama Wrote: I'm glad to see that (as far as I can tell) this isn't directed at one particular breed of dog. One of my dogs is a pit bull - a breed that I was previously terrified of, but this dog was dumped on me. He was a puppy and we've been to obedience classes. He's a little over a year old now and the sweetest, most laid back, well behaved dog. To be honest I still wouldn't be comfortable around a pit I did not know, but that's true of most big/very strong dogs.
I agree! While I've never had a pit bull, I feel the need to step in and defend the breed. Every few years, there's a new danger dog. Before pit bulls, it was Rottweilers. I knew a breeder of Rottweilers, beautiful well-trained show dogs, and she was furious over the bad reputation of the dogs. It's not the dog—it's the trainer. She had a very, very strict screening process and refused to give up her dogs to anyone who wanted a "tough-looking" dog—she even had a 100% no-cops policy because she feared they'd be used as police dogs. And if I recall correctly, before Rottweilers, it was Dobermans (remember The Omen?).
Big, strong dogs like these can certainly cause more harm to a human being than a small dog; I'm not denying that there might be something in their temperament, as well, that makes one breed more aggressive than another.
What I do believe is that there is no dog that will attack without provocation. It might have been abused, it might be ill, or it might perceive a threat we don't, but I don't believe any dog is inherently violent. The public perception of pit bulls (or the media propaganda, if you will) as violent dogs is awful, not only because it unfairly brands the dog, but because terrible people who do want a tough, violent dog now have a breed to pick.
Quote:Many cities and counties – even whole countries – have laws that ban pit bulls. Law enforcement officers can go into people's homes and take away any dog who has "the appearance of a pit bull." Even if they're 40 percent poodle. They can be taken to the pound and then killed.
That's why so many of us don't like these breed discrimination laws. In the right hands, any dog is a good dog. In the wrong hands, any dog is a bad dog. Breed or type has nothing to do with it.
How many of the reported pit bull attacks are real pit bulls, and how many are just stocky-looking dogs that would go with a great headline?
Anyway, in regard to the article, I'm glad that humans are being held responsible. While I find it painful that so many dogs are "destroyed" because of neglectful pet owners, I hope that holding the owners accountable will help bring about some change. The dog doesn't know any better—it's strictly up to its owners to keep the dog out of dangerous situations and to ensure its good temperament.
There has got to be clauses to this law. That they got to investigate and or have a trial in front the jury of their piers before they throw the dog owners in jail and ruin lives on both fronts. They have to get the facts and be darn sure of them! Legal proven facts! I agree that animal owners need to be responsible for them. Then there are two sides to evey situation.
