Reliance on Laws Will Not Decrease Your Chances of a Dog Attack
Dog owner liability is not taken very seriously. Most dog owners ignore it, and many people do not know about it. Although there have been instances where dog owners have had to step up and pay for the consequences of their dogs’ actions, should relying on the law be the answer to the dangers that dogs pose to society?
I am not a huge fan of dogs. Don’t get me wrong, I think they are great, but I am not really a dog person. The great thing about dogs is that they are loyal to their owners in any and every sense. What freaks me out is that I never know what a dog is capable of doing to me! I don’t know what is going on in their mind, or when their sweetness could become viciousness and result in a bite or attack.
Reading news stories of “sweet” dogs attacking people does not help my fear. Just recently a man in Seattle got his lip practically bitten off, with parts of it lying on the park grounds, as he went to pet a dog. The article significantly discussed Seattle dog laws and whether or not the court’s proceedings were the way to go.
Laws regarding dogs vary from state to state. Many people (especially victims) are not aware of dog owners’ liability towards people. In fact, a lot of dog owners do not take their liability seriously. Very few offer to pay for medical expenses when their dog bites someone, unless legal action is taken.
Although I think dog owner liability is a great thing, we should not rely on the law to encourage dog owners to be responsible and take care of their dogs. When two people have a child, they are responsible for the child. The responsibility includes ensuring that their child will not cause harm to others or society. Well, a dog owner’s responsibility is not very different. Many consider dogs as “part of the family.” Well, then family members need to ensure that their canine family member does not cause harm to others.
The article references the case of a dog named Honey. In Honey’s case, how did Honey escape the backyard? Was there a fence? Was it strong and stable or flimsy and weak? Why were Honey’s owners not cautious about the fact that Honey could escape and harm others? If Honey’s owners had not been irresponsible, Honey most likely would not have escaped and bit three strangers in the span of an hour.
The article also talks about Bambu being a gentle dog that was afraid of cats. How then did Bambu attack someone who went to pet him? Although the owner claims that Bambu is a gentle dog, just like people, dogs are also prone to mood swings. Gentleness can turn into violence in a second without warning. This may be what happened in Bambu’s case. Unfortunately, an innocent being suffered harsh injuries to his lip.
Mostly what comes from cases such as Bambu and Honey’s is that people advocate for harsher dog owner liability laws. However, this is only part of the answer to the problem. Change will happen when dog owners start accepting the responsibility of owning dogs in a true sense, and work towards ensuring that their pets will not cause others harm.
One way to do this may be to require anyone who wants to buy a dog to go through a training session, which emphasizes and educates potential dog owners on the liability they are taking on when owning a dog. Also, background checks may be conducted to evaluate if people have the time, resources, and mentality needed to take on the responsibility of a dog.
Although this solution may seem extreme to some, the benefit to society’s safety outweighs any minor negatives. Simpler solutions such as these can help avoid potential litigation and, more importantly, harm to society.
Comments
Really – your fear and no understanding of dogs is really evident in this piece. How dare you suggest that people should be evaluated or ‘credit-checked’ as it were for the time to train the dog etc. Do people have to get the same evaluation to have babies? The liabilities with children can be just as bad or worse. Just get over it.
The only agreeable mentions in this piece are in regards to dog owners, being completely responsible for their dogs. That includes housing, training etc. That should go without saying. A bad dog, is a bad dog – and should be treated as such. Also any idiot should know that no matter how docile, pretty or amiable a dog looks, you never, ever pet or touch a dog you do not know or are unfamiliar with. Most people even teach their small children the same thing. Uh – something like not touching or fondling children you don’t know or are unrelated to. Most violence from dogs is preventable and owners should always be held accountable. But no one can factor in stupidity from people. Train your dog, train people -then anything else should be punishable by law. And, I believe that ‘bad dogs’ (ones that attach without provocation, and the like should be put down after the 2nd bite and the owner fined or jailed if necessary to show the severity of the offense. Dogs unlike people as you say are always loyal to their owners. It depends on the owners training of the pet and the people that are ‘supposed’ to interact with the animal.
Hello Lula,
Thanks for your comment. I respect your feedback and personally have nothing against dogs. I am glad to see that we both have a similar perspective with respect to the importance of dog owners being responsible.
I also disagree with the negativity in this article;however, as I have said many times. A simple solution is to enforce leash laws for control and enforce heavy fines to those owners who are negligent. Enforcing heavy insurance to families that cannot afford the high fees is not the answer. I also feel a “pooper scooper” should be used if walking the dog. I used to see people walk into my yard and let their canines poop, only to leave it for me to clean up. I hated people trying to touch my baby because of germs, but there’s simple control methods, banning breeds is like banning how many children you are allowed to have.