Fairer Dog Laws Are Needed – Dog Training – Dog Trainer – Behaviorist
Call Today!
Sam Basso
PHOENIX , AZ AREA: (602) 708-4531
OR, if you are out of this area, inquire about a telephone or e-Lesson
Email: [email protected]
We NEED more rational and fair dog laws.
Almost all dog laws place the burden of public safety on the dog owner, regardless of how stupidly other people act.
It is time to turn the tables on the whole dog law debate, and fight for balancing legislation. If you’ve ever had some Dog Hater falsely make a claim against you or your dog, you know why there is a need for legal reform.
For example
How about laws such as this…
False Claims
All rational people want vicious dogs removed from this world, and negligent dog owners held responsible for their actions. However, how about holding Dog Haters responsible for making false and harassing claims against dogs and dog owners?
Let’s say someone KNOWINGLY makes a false charge against you or your dog for a minor infraction of a dog law, then, say, after 3 such times, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. If a person KNOWINGLY makes a false charge against you or your dog, you are charged with a crime, and later found NOT GUILTY… then the false accuser should be guilty of a serious crime, pay the court costs of the falsely accused, fined and sent to jail. If the person who made the false charge is also found guilty of the crime they accused someone else of, then the jail time and fines should be doubled, and a substantial punitive damage award should be awarded to the innocent dog owner.
These Dog Hating idiots get off scot-free all the time. They harass you and set up false charges against dog owners and their dogs all the time. This is a waste of public resources, the time of the attorneys / animal control officers / courts/ prosecutors, etc… and it seriously harms the life of the dog owner.
There needs to be serious penalties for getting people falsely arrested.
Dog Abuse
All rational people are against animal abuse. However, some people are exempt from such laws… like kids under 8 years old. In some communities, if a child under 8 abuses a dog and is bitten, it is STILL the dog owner’s fault, the dog will be deemed vicious, and criminal penalties will be enforced against the dog and the owner. That’s just wrong.
How about this… If a minor, say under 12 years old, abuses a dog and the dog bites them… the parents of the kid are arrested. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If the owner of the dog was present when the abuse happened, then the owner will be partly guilty for the attack, and should share in the penalties, proportionate to the level of negligence involved. If the owner was NOT present, then, provided the dog was properly contained in a crate, kennel, fenced yard, home, or vehicle, then the owner of the dog would be exempt from penalties. The owner needs to step in and stop folks from abusing their dog, if they can. But, if they can’t, why penalize the dog or the owner?
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS if it was abused, regardless of the age of the abuser.
Entering Territory
All rational people want unsupervised dogs to be contained within a latched or locked crate, kennel, fenced yard, home or vehicle. However, some people are exempt from such laws… like minors. In some communities, if minor climbs over your locked 6 foot high fence and enters your yard, enters your locked home, enters your locked vehicle, or enters your dog’s locked kennel… and is attacked, most dog laws make it the dog owner’s fault, the dog will be deemed vicious, and criminal penalties will be enforced against the dog and the owner. This is INSANE. How can the dog owner be responsible for supervising the someone else’s kids? I don’t think you can rationally argue that a dog in a locked enclosure is an “attractive nuisance”, like a swimming pool. The kid is in there to cause trouble, and KNOWS they are doing something bad.
How about this… If a minor trespasses into a locked vehicle, home, kennel or fenced yard and the dog bites them… the parents of the kid should be arrested. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If an adult trespasses, then all bets are off. Not only should they be prosecuted for trespass, but they should bear all the legal and medical costs themselves. I have to say this, because this isn’t the law in many situations.
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS if it was protecting territory in a locked enclosure, regardless of the age of the trespasser.
Teasing A Dog
All rational people are against teasing a dog until it bites. It just isn’t fair to aggravate a dog to the point it feels angry. However, some people are exempt from such laws… like kids under 8 years old. In some communities, if a child under 8 teases a dog and is bitten, it is STILL the dog owner’s fault, the dog will be deemed vicious, and criminal penalties will be enforced against the dog and the owner. This is just wrong.
How about this… If a minor, say under 12 years old, teases a dog and the dog bites them… the parents of the kid are arrested. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If the owner of the dog was directly supervising the dog and present when the teasing happened, then the owner will be partly guilty for the attack, and should share in the penalties, proportionate to the level of negligence involved. If the owner was NOT present, then, provided the dog was properly contained in a crate, kennel, fenced yard, home, or vehicle, then the owner of the dog would be exempt from penalties. The owner needs to step in and stop folks from teasing their dog, if they can. But, if they can’t, why penalize the dog or the owner?
If anyone over 12 years old trespasses, then all bets are off. Not only should they be prosecuted for trespass, but they should bear all the legal and medical costs themselves. If they are minors, then the parents should share in their liability. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child. I have to say this, because this isn’t the law in many situations.
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS if it was teased, regardless of the age of the teaser.
Petting A Dog
All rational people know that kids should ask before they pet a stranger’s dog. It just isn’t fair to expect all dogs to like being petting by people they don’t know, regardless of the age of the person doing the petting. They are just dogs, not people. However, all people are exempt from such laws. In some communities, if you touch a dog, without the owner’s permission, and you are bitten, the law says it is the dog owner’s fault, even if the dog owner asked you NOT to pet their dog, the dog will be deemed vicious, and criminal penalties will be enforced against the dog and the owner. That’s just wrong.
How about this… If a minor, say under 12 years old, doesn’t get explicit permission from their parents and the dog owner, yet still pets a dog and the dog bites them… the parents of the kid are arrested. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If the owner of the dog was present and should have been directly supervising their dog when the petting happened, then the owner will be partly guilty for the attack, and should share in the penalties, proportionate to the level of negligence involved. If the owner was NOT present, then, provided the dog was properly contained in a locked crate, kennel, fenced yard, home, or vehicle, then the owner of the dog would be exempt from penalties. However, if the owner is present, the owner needs to step in and stop folks from petting their dog without their permission and without getting permission from the guardian or parent of the kid, if they can. But, if they can’t, why solely penalize the dog or the owner?
If anyone over 12 years old pets a dog without permission, then all bets are off. Not only should they be prosecuted for harassing a dog, but they should bear all the legal and medical costs themselves. If they are minors, then the parents should share in their liability. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child. I have to say this, because this isn’t the law in many situations.
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS if it was petted without the permission of the owner and the adult responsible, regardless of the age of the person doing the petting.
Committing a Violent Crime
All rational people believe a dog should be able to defend itself, its master, other dogs it is bonded to, family members, and victims from violent criminals. It just isn’t fair to expect all dogs to stand by and let other people be attacked, or even murdered, by criminals. However, in many places, dog’s aren’t allowed to bite anyone for any reason. That is insane.
How about this… If a dog protects someone, or another animal, from a criminally violent attack, then the dog and owner should be able to get punitive damages against the criminal as a reward for ensuring the public safety, and the criminal should pay fines and have mandatory jail time.
Letting Dogs Loose To Run At Large
All rational people know that dogs shouldn’t be let loose from a locked yard, kennel, home, or vehicle without the owner’s direct supervision and permission. Some Dog Haters and mischievous people, regardless of their age, will let your dog loose as a prank, or to get your dogs run over by a car, or to cause you trouble. It just isn’t fair to expect a dog to remain in its enclosure if a stranger comes along and lets them loose, regardless of the age of the person releasing your dog. Dogs are just dogs, not people. However, people are usually exempt from such laws, or at the very least, not punished severely for letting animals loose. Animal rights wackos do this at dog shows, and in fur farming and ranching operations, as a way of causing mischief. Then, if the dog is loose and attacks someone, you might go to jail, and the dog put to death. That is unfair and unjust. Setting a dog loose like this, to harass other people, kill livestock, attack other pets, or to get injured or killed in an accident should be a serious crime. Such a dog should NOT be deemed vicious, and criminal penalties should not be enforced against the dog or the owner.
How about this… If a minor, say under 12 years old, doesn’t get explicit permission from the dog owner, yet lets a dog loose and the dog causes harm or injury to others or itself… the parents of the kid are arrested. If the injuries and/or damages are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries and/or damages are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If anyone over 12 years old lets a loose dog without the owner’s permission, then all bets are off. Not only should they be prosecuted for setting loose a dog, but they should bear all the legal and medical costs themselves if something bad happens. They should also get a fine and jail time, even if no damages or injuries ensue. Letting dogs loose is no joke. If they are minors, then the parents should share in their liability. If the injuries are minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the injuries are severe or lethal, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child. I have to say this, because this isn’t the law in many situations.
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS if it was set loose without the permission of the owner and the adult responsible, regardless of the age of the person who opened the door and let the dog out.
Barking Laws
All rational people don’t like nuisance dog barking. However, some Dog Haters and mischievous people, regardless of their age, will tease your dog as a prank, or maliciously, or to get your dogs in trouble with the law for making too much noise. Dog barking laws often have very severe penalties for the dog and the owner, including taking the dog from the owner, “de-barking” the dog (forced surgical removal of the vocal cords by a surgeon), fines, euthanasia for some dogs, and even jail time for the dog owners. Barking is serious business. It just isn’t fair to expect a dog to remain quiet, and to punish the dog and owner, if some Dog Hater purposely provokes a dog to bark or whine or howl without the owner’s permission. Dogs are just dogs, not people. However, these Dog Haters are usually exempt from laws which would hold them accountable for teasing dogs to make them bark, and they are often scot-free if they file false claims about barking dogs.
How about this… If a minor, say under 12 years old, doesn’t get explicit permission from the dog owner, harasses or teases a dog and makes the dog violate the noise ordinances, then the parents of the kid are arrested. If the infraction is minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the infraction penalty would have been severe for the owner or the dog if they were guilty, then the parents of the kid will be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child.
If anyone over 12 years old purposely harasses and teases a dog, without the owner’s permission, to bark and violate the noise ordinance, then all bets are off. Not only should they be prosecuted as if they were the owner of the barking dog, but they should bear all the legal costs themselves. Teasing dogs to make them bark is no joke. You can tease them to the point that they bite someone some day. If they are minors, then the parents should share in their liability. If the barking was minor, then the penalty would be a misdemeanor, and if the barking was severe and a major violation of the noise ordinance, then the parents of the kid should be guilty of a serious crime… FOR BEING SERIOUSLY AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in not supervising their child. I have to say this, because this isn’t the law in many situations.
If the owner condones or gives permission to allow someone else to make their dog bark, then they should bear the penalties of the dog barking law along with those who made the dog bark.
In either case, the dog should be deemed NOT VICIOUS or a NUISANCE and the adults responsible, regardless of the age of the persons who did the teasing or harassing, should pay the penalties.
How’s THAT for turning the tables?!
