Calgary Girl, 9, Mauled by Dog; Bylaw Asks: "Should Fines Increase?"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by freedogger

Technically, but don't you think the threat of each still shape behaviour? It is something I consider with my own dog and she's about as dangerous as a blade of grass.

Nope most HO policies will cover this type of thing (I am not am expert thou), insurance policies will not cover fines.

Most people don't want $ coming out of their pocket.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not over the top at all.

I guess you should clarify a bit then. Are you saying all dogs are dangerous weapons and their owners are gun toting hoodlums, or just the dogs who attack people?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I guess you should clarify a bit then. Are you saying all dogs are dangerous weapons and their owners are gun toting hoodlums, or just the dogs who attack people?

All dogs are potentially dangerous weapons, yes. In the same way guns or knives are potentially dangerous. If you own a knife, but never stab anybody with it, all is good. If you own a knife and stab somebody with it or another animal, you should be in trouble.

If your dog attacks a little nine-year-old girl riding her bike, perhaps you should be treated the same as if you attacked her with a knife. Or maybe there is a more appropriate middle ground, but the current $1500 fine isn't nearly punitive enough for the crime that was committed IMO.

[Table 5]

I still think the simplest, easiest, most cost effective answer for owners and the city is to require dogs to wear a basic muzzle. Set some rule where every dog above 30 pounds (or whatever) has to wear a muzzle when they are off private property and not in a dog park. The dog might still chase kids or other pets but won't be able to inflict serious damage.

It's done in other countries, and seems to work fairly well. Bylaw officers will be able to tell right away who's complying and who's not. No muzzle...you get a ticket, just like for anything else. Get a few tickets....more serious consequences, whatever that may be (no dog for you?).

Yes, not all big dogs are crazy or dangerous (ie, Great Danes are about as low-key as it gets), but you have to set the bar somewhere...and let's face it, most dog attacks are from larger breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweillers, Shephers etc. Sure, some small dogs have a high prey instinct, but people don't die from having a crazy dachshund biting at their ankle. If something goes down, you can usually punt them into the next zip code.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Do you have a better suggestion of deturring attacks? It's easy to denounce any resolution without suggestion of better means. IMO there is no better deterrent than the risk of becoming financially handicapped for being an irresponsible owner.

I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

I question the effectiveness of using financial penalties to facilitate behavioral change.

Lets take traffic fines for example. They keep ratcheting up fines for not wearing seatbelts, yet it hasn't changed my habit of not wearing one when booting around town.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Lets take traffic fines for example. They keep ratcheting up fines for not wearing seatbelts, yet it hasn't changed my habit of not wearing one when booting around town.

sorry totally off topic, but why don't you wear a belt?

[Zevo]

Requiring every large dog to be muzzled is a knee-jerk reaction IMO. I'm not for muzzling at all but if that is the road taken, it seems to be mostly specific breeds that seem to re-offend. I mean why would you muzzle a retriever or a lab?

While we are over-reacting, why don't we impose a 2 drink limit at bars and restaurants and put speed limiters on cars so they can't go over 80 kph.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Care to point to an example in this thread?

In this thread or the dog de-barking thread I could point out several. The long and short of it is that you and I don't see eye to eye on animal issues and will always disagree.

As I've said before, I think a lot of your arguments are misinformed and are probably influenced by ignorant or flat out bad owners... I can't change your impressions vs good pet owners over a message board, but it's not going to stop me from finding flaws in your arguments.

You don't see the comparison I make with muzzling children (which is somewhat tongue in cheek in response to your "muzzle every dog" response) but kids/animals are the product of the environment they were brought up in. If a dog is brought up by crappy owners and has a poor homelife, then it's more likely to lash out and be dangerous... same deal goes with a child then.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

sorry totally off topic, but why don't you wear a belt?

Probably believes in the myth that you'll be thrown free of the wreckage and walk away unscathed.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

In this thread or the dog de-barking thread I could point out several. The long and short of it is that you and I don't see eye to eye on animal issues and will always disagree.

As I've said before, I think a lot of your arguments are misinformed and are probably influenced by ignorant or flat out bad owners... I can't change your impressions vs good pet owners over a message board, but it's not going to stop me from finding flaws in your arguments.

You don't see the comparison I make with muzzling children (which is somewhat tongue in cheek in response to your "muzzle every dog" response) but kids/animals are the product of the environment they were brought up in. If a dog is brought up by crappy owners and has a poor homelife, then it's more likely to lash out and be dangerous... same deal goes with a child then.

I think it's more just that you make really bad arguments than anything. Muzzling children is not a good counter point because there isn't a problem of kids viciously biting other people. Kids are necessary for our species and societies to carry on. Dogs aren't. It's just a really poor argument and you keep. going. back. to. it.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I still think the simplest, easiest, most cost effective answer for owners and the city is to require dogs to wear a basic muzzle. Set some rule where every dog above 30 pounds (or whatever) has to wear a muzzle when they are off private property and not in a dog park. The dog might still chase kids or other pets but won't be able to inflict serious damage.

It's done in other countries, and seems to work fairly well. Bylaw officers will be able to tell right away who's complying and who's not. No muzzle...you get a ticket, just like for anything else. Get a few tickets....more serious consequences, whatever that may be (no dog for you?).

Yes, not all big dogs are crazy or dangerous (ie, Great Danes are about as low-key as it gets), but you have to set the bar somewhere...and let's face it, most dog attacks are from larger breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweillers, Shephers etc. Sure, some small dogs have a high prey instinct, but people don't die from having a crazy dachshund biting at their ankle. If something goes down, you can usually punt them into the next zip code.

It's hard enough to keep dog owners from letting their pets crap where they aren't supposed. Hoping bylaw officers are out checking dogs for muzzles isn't going to do anything.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

sorry totally off topic, but why don't you wear a belt?

I do buckle up in certain situations.
I usually wear a belt when I'm travelling lots of highway miles, and definately at night time because I'm paranoid about deers walking onto the highway.

I was raised on a farm where you get in and out of your machinery dozens of times a day and it becomes an inconvenience to hitch up every time. I find them generally uncomfortable.

[COGENT]

Ban stretch leashes... anything longer than 6 feet, you don't have control over your dog.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Probably believes in the myth that you'll be thrown free of the wreckage and walk away unscathed.

Don't speak for me.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think it's more just that you make really bad arguments than anything. Muzzling children is not a good counter point because there isn't a problem of kids viciously biting other people. Kids are necessary for our species and societies to carry on. Dogs aren't. It's just a really poor argument and you keep. going. back. to. it.

It seems acceptable to leash children, which also makes them safer... muzzling them just seems like the next step.

Really though, it's not surprising you take my tongue in cheek comment and focus on that and totally miss the main point of my previous post.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

It seems acceptable to leash children, which also makes them safer... muzzling them just seems like the next step.

Really though, it's not surprising you take my tongue in cheek comment and focus on that and totally miss the main point of my previous post.

To which post are you referring? I just read through all your posts looking for a point and I couldn't find one. I promise a thoughtful answer, but I need the question first.

[Lt.Spears]

Fines are fine, sometimes animals snap... no need to punish the owners if a dog suddenly gets out of control.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Lt.Spears

Fines are fine, sometimes animals snap... no need to punish the owners if a dog suddenly gets out of control.

So it is your position that there is an inherent risk in owning a dog and not that dogs with good owners are completely safe?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Lets take traffic fines for example. They keep ratcheting up fines for not wearing seatbelts, yet it hasn't changed my habit of not wearing one when booting around town.

That just means they haven't raised the deterrent to your threshold level yet. I'm sure if it was something extreme like car confiscation you'd put a seat belt on.

[Byrns]

I don't think there should be an increase in fine. Mandatory community service (200+ hours) would be more effective without bankrupting anyone. If there are any medical bills the owner should be on the hook for them.