The problem with Dangerous Dog laws...
- Thread starter casablanca1
- Start date
I've always thought that the laws should be written so that if you have a handful of minor problems, you're stopped before they turn into major ones. If your dog gets out once, twice, three times, its gone. The 2nd time you go through that process, you're barred from living with dogs. Same if someone complains about your dog threatening them. Same with bites, only less leeway. If you can't handle a dog, you shouldn't be allowed to own one. (And yeah, maybe include an appeals process for someone to get their dog-owning privleges reinstated after X amount of years. Let it be voted on by the peoples' neighbors, LOL!)
I guess I should say substantiated claims. Naturally, there would be some sort of investigation process, or temperament test perhaps. I just think a lot of times these issues we see are coming from the same people, and that if we want to regulate effectively, we need to start looking at the places which are consistently having problems.
I don't think there are going to be any perfect laws. But doesn't the idea of stopping problem situations before they escalate merit some consideration? The people charged with our safety are frequently powerless to do anything about it. The AC guy where I'm at said he couldn't seize an in-heat St. Bernard that was wandering our street and attracting males because he needed permission from the property owner. That is utterly ridiculous, and its an opportunity missed.
There is no way we're going to abolish all laws and free ourselves of those who exploit them. There will always be people ready and willing to use ordinances for malicious purposes. In areas with code enforcement, you could get your neighbors in trouble for peeling paint or cracked steps of all things! You could have a law against loud music, and there would be someone ready to turn it against their neighbor. We were in an ongoing feud with our neighbors, so they called our police and reported us under the brand-new BSL as "hiding Pit Bulls in the basement." (We had no dogs at the time.) How would a law which deals with stupid owners as infractions arise be any different? At least it makes more sense as far as dealing with actual problems than rounding up one breed at a time for the gas chamber. At least I think it does.
There is no way we're going to abolish all laws and free ourselves of those who exploit them. There will always be people ready and willing to use ordinances for malicious purposes. In areas with code enforcement, you could get your neighbors in trouble for peeling paint or cracked steps of all things! You could have a law against loud music, and there would be someone ready to turn it against their neighbor. We were in an ongoing feud with our neighbors, so they called our police and reported us under the brand-new BSL as "hiding Pit Bulls in the basement." (We had no dogs at the time.) How would a law which deals with stupid owners as infractions arise be any different? At least it makes more sense as far as dealing with actual problems than rounding up one breed at a time for the gas chamber. At least I think it does.
There is no way we're going to abolish all laws and free ourselves of those who exploit them. There will always be people ready and willing to use ordinances for malicious purposes. In areas with code enforcement, you could get your neighbors in trouble for peeling paint or cracked steps of all things! You could have a law against loud music, and there would be someone ready to turn it against their neighbor. We were in an ongoing feud with our neighbors, so they called our police and reported us under the brand-new BSL as "hiding Pit Bulls in the basement." (We had no dogs at the time.) How would a law which deals with stupid owners as infractions arise be any different? At least it makes more sense as far as dealing with actual problems than rounding up one breed at a time for the gas chamber. At least I think it does.
Its the first place I've lived in where I've even heard of such a thing. (AC not being able to take a dog at large.) Those people are moving out now, and will soon be someone else's problem. My thing is, if all AC can do is take stray dogs, they're doing the owner a favor by making it so they don't have to have any accountability for letting their dog roam, only pay a fine if they want it back. (And how many don't care if they get their dog back, since they can get another one?) The only difference in my idea is that if your dog is ending up in the shelter repeatedly, you would be barred from owning more.