Now here we have a classic example of governmental over-involvement in people’s personal lives.
The problem: irresponsible people keep dangerous dogs that attack people. The proposed solution: an expensive competency test be required of any prospective dog owner, along with the insertion of a microchip in the animal(s) involved.
The problems with the solution:
(1) the frightened or demented folks who would want a dangerous dog for defense or intimidation will get them. They’ll either buy them black market–which will be easy. Realistically, the already cash-strapped British government will not be able to field the small (or large) army of agents which would be necessary to track down all the unregistered dogs that naturally result when guy dogs and lady dogs are alone together. Or, if the irresponsible folk have no taste for the illegal, they can always talk like responsible people and then get permission to get their dogs. So the bill is doomed.
(2) The British government is, as I noted above, pretty much broke, spending 9 pounds for every 8 pounds in tax receipts it takes in. Setting up an agency to give dog ownership tests, and then setting up enforcement to stop people from just ignoring the agency are irresponsible steps for a nation which already is unable to pay its bills.
My counterproposal:
(1) Make dog owners liable for their dog’s actions. Prosecute an assault by a dog as an assault by its owner. Hold owners financially liable for the surgical repair and therapy required by any injury. Treat killing by a dog as reckless homicide by the owner. Require any dog which has ever been violent to be put down. Allow concerned citizens to kill any stray dogs they find threatening without fear of penalty.
It may sound harsh, but that’ll do more than any testing will. And for all the apparent strictness of that approach, its harshness will more than made up for by the lives saved and trauma averted by it.
pending uk dog restrictions flawed, though perhaps well-intentioned
uk seeks competency tests for dog owners
Now here we have a classic example of governmental over-involvement in people’s personal lives.
The problem: irresponsible people keep dangerous dogs that attack people. The proposed solution: an expensive competency test be required of any prospective dog owner, along with the insertion of a microchip in the animal(s) involved.
The problems with the solution:
(1) the frightened or demented folks who would want a dangerous dog for defense or intimidation will get them. They’ll either buy them black market–which will be easy. Realistically, the already cash-strapped British government will not be able to field the small (or large) army of agents which would be necessary to track down all the unregistered dogs that naturally result when guy dogs and lady dogs are alone together. Or, if the irresponsible folk have no taste for the illegal, they can always talk like responsible people and then get permission to get their dogs. So the bill is doomed.
(2) The British government is, as I noted above, pretty much broke, spending 9 pounds for every 8 pounds in tax receipts it takes in. Setting up an agency to give dog ownership tests, and then setting up enforcement to stop people from just ignoring the agency are irresponsible steps for a nation which already is unable to pay its bills.
My counterproposal:
(1) Make dog owners liable for their dog’s actions. Prosecute an assault by a dog as an assault by its owner. Hold owners financially liable for the surgical repair and therapy required by any injury. Treat killing by a dog as reckless homicide by the owner. Require any dog which has ever been violent to be put down. Allow concerned citizens to kill any stray dogs they find threatening without fear of penalty.
It may sound harsh, but that’ll do more than any testing will. And for all the apparent strictness of that approach, its harshness will more than made up for by the lives saved and trauma averted by it.
Related Posts: