How is this to solve bad owner problems?

Question

So, I think I have figured out how to prevent poor breeding and poor dog ownership with aggressive breeds. What do you guys think of the law holding the owner criminally responsible for their pets behavior? Let me know your thoughts of that.

I am talking criminally responsible... If your dog bites someone YOU are charged with assault.

Answer 1

Its a good idea and there are actually some laws in places that do charge the owners, but it needs to be enforced. I love my rottweilers but if I am negligent enough to let them do any damage to anybody, whether it be a person or animal, I would expect to be held responsible. I think that owners should be charged just as though they themselves did the deed, whatever it may be. Alot more people would rethink having breeds they cant handle and ultimately, in a perfect world, the dogs would be with responsible people instead of idiots. *big sigh* like that will ever happen. :( I also think that instead of banning certain breeds, that owners of these targeted breeds ought to have a permit and attend training classes for themselves. (I would pay that fee with no problem if it meant that my dogs life wouldnt be in danger just cuz she is a rottie) There may be a big rise in dogs at shelters and at rescues for awhile, but in the end, the numbers would come down IF the laws were enforced. In our state, if somebody breaks into your house and your dog attacks them, the dog is labeled dangerous and put down. How stupid is this? The problem is with people, not the dogs!!!!!!!! And the laws should address THAT!

Answer 2

Everyone that I know of that opposes BSL advocates owner responsibility. Some places have various forms of this in place, unfortunately not nearly enough, and too many are seduced into thinking banning some breed(s) is going to solve their problem.

Here's the AKC's page about legislative affairs:

Answer 3

No. Too many rescues would be shut down for this very reason. Many people are trying to rehabilitate problem dogs, but run into problems on the way.

I believe, however, that if you have been proven as a dog abuser, you should be psychologically examined, then sent to a rehabilitation clinic yourself, as anyone sick enough to do ANYTHING cruel to a dog clearly needs help.

I just finished reading a story about a dog on www.petfinder.com who's old owner used it for target practice before he went hunting.

I really really do hate people.

Answer 4

that is such a good idea but they won't do it...the thing is that if a dog does something bad then the automatically blame it on the dog they won't do anything about the owners. the only way the owner will get in trouble 4 it would be if they abused the dog, or did something illegal w/ the dog. this is cruel but true. for example the pitbulls. the pitbulls that are mean are treated badly but do they do anything to the owners? no they don't, they only punish the dog. its not fair but thats they way it is. they won't change anything

Answer 5

That is pretty much the law for all dogs, not just dogs that are classed as a dangerous breed. And i agree with it!

Answer 6

I think they already are responsible. Like if your dog bites somebody, you have to pay the hospital bill.

Answer 7

Why not? It's in par with everything else. The law takes away a parents right to discipline their children, then holds them responsible for their children's misbehavior.
Next.. they take away rights to discipline their animals...the next logical step is to now make them responsible for their animals behavior.Not surprising at all to me.

Answer 8

If the dog is off the leash wandering then yes. If the dog is protecting its territory then no.

Answer 9

There are already laws in place for that. They are ineffective and usually aren't enforced. OSL is the way to go!

Answer 10

the law already does that -- at least in the states i've lived in.