The case of one child being killed and others wounded by dogs, either illegal or legal brings to question about the reasoning of not having a dog licence. Surely the best way of coping with dangerous dogs is to have all dogs registered. Years ago this would have been impossible but with computer techniques and micro chipping this is no longer impossible.
The idea behind it is this. Any dog born in this country or imported would be registered for a fee, if the dog is not registered which would include chipping then the owner would be fined, however if the dog is found to be an illegal breed then the owner would face a five year mandatory prison sentence. The owner of the dog that recently chilled a child was given two months. His action in buying that dog has been the instrumental in the death of a child. Thats not just the death but also taking away its future, the children she might have had, the wonders she would have experienced or even the discoveries that might have been a cure for cancer. We will never know now will we?
The positive outcomes are two fold, it would stop owners just dumping the dogs in the street to fend for themselves and cause extra burdens on the already overwhelmed dogs homes, as the owner could be found through the data base. If the dog is sold or given away then the new owner would have to fill out a registration document, like a car. The five year sentence should discourage some potential owners that think its cool to own an illegal breed. It should also cut down the numbers of dogs being used for dog fighting.
A breed of dog which has been specifically bred for the purposes of fighting is a potential killer and those that sell, own or use them should be treated in the same way as anybody who carries a weapon.
Its not the dogs fault but they pay the ultimate price.
I cannot believe that in this day and age that the RSPCA is a charity. It should be part of the police force and consequently have the same powers of detection and arrest. This worthwhile and invaluable organisation is supported by charitable donations. I'm sorry but even a new recruit policeman should with his ear to the ground know someone on his patch with an unruly dog. The police have got to start being part of the community rather just policing it. Their dog handlers should go around schools showing how to recognise the difference between a good and a bad dog, so if they see this type of dog in the park just tell their teacher. Simplistic? Yes and if being simple can save another child from being mauled by a dog then so be it.
2 comments:
I agree with this but would add that many breeds of dog should be erradicated while others should have ownership restrictions. Many dog breeds came about because of specific uses that are no longer relevant. Pit Bulls, Rotweilers, Terriers and so on are simply not necessary - Alsatians ahouls be restricted to police or military use. Frankly anyone who wants to own a dog as a pet should only need consider a Labrador or Retriever (if they want a big dog) or a Spanial (if they want a small one) these are fantastic dogs in terms of temperament and anyone who wants a pet dog of any other sort clearly has other purposes for ownership.
It is the end of 2007 and another child has been killed by a dog, this time a Rotweiller. Whilst I agree that any dog can potentially be dangerous if it has been mistreated or trained, it is clear that many dogs, bred for specific purposes, should never be allowed to be kept as 'pets'. For me this would include Rotweilers, Alsations and Terriers, as all have been bred to attack, fight or kill. It is time the Government took more responsibility. Banning more groups of dogs from private ownership (they would still be available for working) and increasing the cost of ownership to deter those who see a dog as an extension of their lifestyle rather than an animal that requires and deserves looking after.
Post a Comment