As news of yet another innocent child being violently ripped and torn apart by yet another, dangerously-aggressive, unrestrained dog makes the rounds, the people are once again put on notice of just how vulnerable and unprotected they are in the face of these savage beasts, their irresponsible, 'don't-care' owners, and the lack of any laws to protect them or from which to seek any proper redress. And as is the usual case in the subsequent environment of hysteria that always follows one of these attacks, the people are looking to the authorities to do something, anything that would make the occurrence of these unimaginable nightmares a thing of the past, and the government, in whom all legislative and enforcement authority is vested to make such a request so, are once again failing miserably at the task and coming up woefully, almost indecently short. The 'Dangerous Dog Act' passed under the last administration finds itself in legislative limbo as it is not yet law since it has never been proclaimed despite being 'passed,' and in what could only be a clear case of government for some of the people and not all, this administration, despite sniffing around at the issue everytime some unlucky person is maimed or killed by one or more of these unstoppable beasts, seems unwilling to commit to dealing with this menace for some unfathomable reason.
Many say that the Act in question is in nobody's best interest as it is fraught with loopholes for the guilty to escape being brought to justice, especially because trying to identify what is a 'dangerous dog' in each situation may be a frustrating exercise and one done in futility. They point to the abandonment of Breed Specific Legislation around the world as proof that outlawing specific types of dogs cannot solve the problem where mixed breeds are concerned, so I say if simply proclaiming what already obtains is not the correct step to take at this point then let us repeal it altogether and replace it with a law that works. In my view what became the 'Dangerous Dog Bill' was a clear case of what could only be the best being the enemy of the good, and I think the drafters may have gone too far trying to accomplish too much for absolutely no reason. As breeders and canine activists agree and insist that ALL dogs could be dangerous under the right conditions, I must say not only do I absolutely concur, but I think that right there in that statement is the solution. What we need is a 'Dog Ownership Bill,' one that puts complete responsibility for the actions of the dog (regardless of breed, size, colour or any other differential) on the owner. From the upkeep and well being of the animal to the clean up of any droppings in public spaces, owners must be made to understand that owning a dog comes with significant responsibility and in failing to comply may find themselves liable to unexpected cost and inconvenience. The law should include requirements for proof of ownership such as licenses or micro chip tagging so as to identify errant owners, and should insist that all dogs, once in public, be properly muzzled and on a leash. It should also include such penalties as manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and 'causing grievous bodily harm' for dog attacks, with onerous consequences such as large fines, responsibility for all expenses directly attributed to the attack itself (including loss of earnings) and possible jail time.
Once it is common knowledge that they could be held criminally as well as financially liable for the actions of their dogs I am sure the breeding and placing of large and potentially dangerous dogs into irresponsible hands will be curbed and bring an abrupt end to this fad, which I am sure has contributed in no small way to the huge rise in maulings and killings in the recent past. This move would be in the best interest of responsible dog owners and the public alike and I would like to strongly suggest (again) that this become a front burner issue so as to protect the public at large from what is really a preventable menace and one that ought to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Radar said...
ReplyDeleteThe humane view that dogs and animals have rights that need to be protected as well has been completely overlooked. And while we sympathize with children who have been attacked by dogs, we also believe that being a child is not a license to be cruel to Man's four legged best friend. People generally, but moreso children must learn to respect other people's property and that includes their pets. The following biting anecdote (pardon the pun) involving our family's deceased Rhodesian Ridgeback pet named Mrs. Job really happened. People in the Las Lomas area still talk about it up to today.
Every afternoon, children going home from school would pelt stones at Mrs. Job, a gentle, loving but ugly dog, through the gate. They would take sticks and throw lashes at her, even though they could not reach her. This happened over a prolonged period. Another dog we had was a little Pompek that they would also taunt and provoke. Being a small dog, the Pompek's neck and head could fit through the iron bars of the gate. One day, one of the children fired a kick at the Pompek while her head was outside of the gate. That kick knocked out several of her teeth and ripped her jaw wide open. As a dog lover and owner one could imagine my anguish and anger. But as old people say "God does not sleep". He may wear pajamas, but he certainly "does not sleep".
Some two or three months later, a workman inadvertently did not secure the gate properly; when the taunting and provoking started, and amidst the general, wild misbehviour of the children, Mrs. Job got outside and wreaked her revenge. That was what you could call the vengeance of Moko, and boy, did she wreak it, not only for the months of taunting and provocation but also (if I were to judge from the bites the children sustained) for the injuries they had inflicted on the Pompek. One child was bitten in his two cheeks, another ended up with two top lips and two bottom lips, and yet another was bitten all over her shoulders and back. Of course, the parents were incensed, after all, those three "darling little children" who had been taunting, provoking and inflicting injury on my pets for several months were 'de best behaved chirren in de world". "Yuh dorg bite up meh best chile". One angry parent complained. I was totally indifferent and unsympathetic to their suffering, I said "phuck dat" but I paid the doctor's bill for the three children. I really did not care.
The point behind my biting anecdote is that the "Dangerous Dogs" legislation does not take into account the issue of unprovoked aggression by humans towards dogs and neither does it impose any responsibility on the public (man, woman or child) to respect the dog's defensive and territorial instincts and its right not to be provoked, antagonized or otherwise interfered with.
We know that not all cases of dog biting fall into the category described above but some, I would say more than quite a few do, and no responsibility or liability is attached under the legislation to the victim who provokes the attack he/she sustains.