Human minds presented in their naked
glory and their wildest adornment

Articles Showcase

Submit your high quality article. Showcase your author skills! Advertise yor business, your hobby or share knowledge. Reprint strictly in accordance with Terms And Conditions

Home Contact Sitemap

Home Page List Contact

** Free reprint article. May be reprinted only providing the author bio, source
information and a working link back to this site are included.

Topic: Social Issues

Dog Attacks Show Legislators Have False Teeth

By Gareth Eastwood 2008-02-06

If factory owners negligently allowed machines to do to employees the same sorts of injuries that people's dogs do to innocent passers-by the authorities would be trying very hard to put them in jail. But when those injuries are caused by someone's pooch it's somehow different.

People's motive for keeping dogs of savage or dangerous breeds isn't usually because they make cute and cuddly family pets. They keep them specifically for their ability to inflict harm on any person that their owner would want harmed. They keep them to pose a threat against intruders and possible attackers. They may well love their pet as a family member. Nevertheless, their dog helps them to feel safe and powerful.

Having obtained a dog for those purposes they are hardly going to turn it into a wimp. They will generally try to foster the dog's threatening and attacking qualities directed towards territorial defence, believing that they can keep it reliably under control.

We have seen many times that when the human falls down, even momentarily, in managing their canine weapon, which is largely what it is, an innocent human can be grievously wounded. We have also seen many times that their control over their dog can be less reliable than they thought.

Dog lobbies are very powerful. They construct a battering-ram of massive pet-loving sentiments which they mercilessly smash against the merest hint of dog control laws. They raise spectres of totalitarian government and they unashamedly hide behind spurious arguments. They insist that responsible dog owners ought not to be penalised for the actions of irresponsible ones, but they offer no solution that is effective in preventing innocent people from injury by dogs of irresponsible owners. They effectively fog the fact that each dog owner is considered to be responsible right up to the point where their beloved pet attacks and maims someone.

These self-interested pressure groups ought not to be given an effective power of veto over laws designed in interest of the majority. Yet in Australia, legislators won't tackle them for fear of getting bitten.

Governments have made much noise about effective dog controls but attacks still happen and horrendous injuries still occur. Civil action cannot be relied upon as a form of preventive justice.

It is very high time that legislators took their teeth out of solution jars, replaced them in their mouths and bit back very hard against irresponsible or negligent dog owners. The gummy efforts we have witnessed so far are cowardly cop-outs.

Each dog should have a registered supervisor who accepts total responsibility at all times for ensuring public safety from injury, either physical or psychological, caused by their pet. That responsibility must remain even when their dog is not under their immediate supervision.

Penalties for supervisors failing to guarantee safety of the public, including their own children, against injury by their dog need to be mandatory and severe.

Gareth Eastwood contributes articles to www.mindesque.com. He is an enthusiastic Rock 'n' Roll Dancer and teacher in Adelaide, South Australia. He maintains a premier website dedicated to Rock n Roll Dance at www.rocknrolldance.com. He also created and runs a large singles social network in Adelaide based around www.garethevents.info/