uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-BRADmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMay 29, 2011 at 9:05 PM
The people should not be charged because it was the dog not the owner. It was not there fault because if the parent knew the dog breed was dangerous they should have told the child to stay away. but ther dog never shouldnt of bit them in the first place. So therefore the dog should get a 6 month dog prison sentence. It would be different if a person rearanged someones face they would not get put down so the dog should go to dog prison and the owner should face some fines.
cam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!May 29, 2011 at 10:40 PM
I think that dog breeds that are considered dangerous should not be destroyed, because the dog might not have shown aggressive behaviour in the past and some farm owners might rely on that type of breed because of its behaviour. The owner of the dog should not be blamed because it was the dog not the person so a solution for it would be to muzzle it when its in public.
No I don’t think any breed of dog should be “destroyed” because I think its wrong to put a animals live before a humans just because they attacked a little child. If any small child comes within a dog’s space they are capable of getting hurt because dogs are territorial, also toddlers do eyeball dogs witch is seen as a challenge to dogs. When small children are around dogs and irritate them, the dogs do not hesitate to attack them because they are there same size. I think owners should be charged for there animals actions because they should know when they obtain a dangerous dog breed they need to take extra caution.
I think that it is fair for the owner of the dog to prosecute for their dog's actions because it is their responsibility to make sure that the dog has the appropriate training especially if it is a larger breed such as a bull mastive. Also the owner shouldn't be allowing younger children around dogs who could be potentially dangerous if the child might irritate the dog. This could also be helped by the government putting more laws in place for example you can only own certain breeds in the city, so owners would be more careful about choosing a safe breed for the environment they are in. Also I agree with Cam about destroying dangerous breeds because their aggressive nature is good for farming and hunting.
i think it was the dog owners fault because it should have been tied up i dont think it had of been put down the owner should have had full responsibility over the dog if the owner couldnt handle it the owner should have gave the dog away
i dont think that any breed of dogs should be destroyed just because a dog attacked a little child, because thats just like saying that if a human made a mistake during life that they would get killed, which no that doesnt happen so no dogs should be killed. i also think that if the owners know that their dog is a dangerous breed then they should either tie it up or put a harness over there mouths so that they cannot bite anyone. i dont think the dog should be put down but maybe they could get a decent charge. even if the child did something to agrivate the dog and make it attack. the children need to learn as well, they need to learn that if they dont know the dog do not approach it. yes i do think that the dog owners should be criminally charged but the dogs should not be put down.
i think all dogs that atack a person should be put down and if dog kennels breed dangerous dogs that may have a tenincy to atack the kennels should be fined a large sum of money and stop breeding that dog
i think that if a dog bites anyone they should be punished and left alone for a couple of days but if a dog has riped the face of someone i think you would know wot to do. my dog bit my little sister and has still got a mark and debbie thinks that it was isys fault because he had not been around kids that much even tho he sleeps on my bed every night.he also bit my sisters arm and broke it but he was sleeping and having a seger and my sister came up to him aand grabed his colar which gave him a frite and my dad gave him a whip and left him in his kennel for a coupl of days and has never bit any one since not even tryed so in the end i think that they should not destroy the bread just use brute force to save the life of a breed of dog BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM
There so so many things to debate about on this subject but I think that in the end it is usually the child's fault for they are the ones that go right up into the dogs face and pull their ears and tails which is going to really aggravate animals lust like it would for yous I mean imagine if your minding your own business and some kid comes and Start annoying you and intruding your personal space . A Lao you need to set boundaries you can't just say it was someone or something's else's fault I mean say your kid goes up and punches someone in the face and they punch him or her back you can't say it's their fault
I think that the owners should not be prosecuted as it is not there fault that their dog is easily provoked because of territorial fighting with babies and young children who do not know what dogs are capable of and I don't think that the dogs should be put down because that is murder and all they were doing was defending themselves but I think that some breeds of dogs who are more easily provoked or are slot more aggressive should not be able to be owned as that would ease the attacks. Also children should be kept away from dogs until they know that dogs are dangerous and could make them have plastic surgery and cause for them to have a disformed face
I don't think that dogs should be destroyed just if a little child pulled the dogs ears and the dog leapt out, not meaning to hurt anyone badly and accidentally got someone in the face!!! IT IS NOT FAIR!!!!! Poor Dogs!!!! If the dog is known to growl or not be friendly towards people they should either have a muzzle put on or be chained/tied up. I will continue this soon...
little children don't know much about dogs and their language (tail upright, hackles raised) So if little children go into their territory, the dog might see this as a challenge and get aggressive. Different breeds would be provoked easier so the breeds that are the owners should be careful with them. STOP KILLING DOGS!!!!!!!!!
no i dont think that all the dangerous dog breeds should be destroyed because people who get sent to prison they get to live their lives in prison they dont get put down.and it is not the dogs fault if they get provoked then it is the thing or person that provoked the dog. and the people wernt keeping an eye out four the child and dog.
I would just lock the dog up in it's kennal then I would TEACH IT TO NOT ATTACK LITTLE KIDS.Because it's not fair to destroy a dog when it makes a mistake and not kill ourselves. They are still animals just like we are. If the little kid that it attacked needed loads of plastic surgery then i would sell or give the dog away to someone who has older siblings/children/cousins/family members etc. BUT NOT KILL IT!We dont know if the child was doing anything to annoy the dog. No I don't think that all the dog breeds considered dangerous should be killed just because of some dogs in that breed being vicious. With the proper training and obedience all dogs could be kind and not do vicious things. I think that the goverment should be more i dont know encoraging about getting your dog trained properly and instead of charging the owners of the dog the goverment should be making a law that with your permet to own a dog they have to be trained to a certain level. I do think that owners should be charged if they were breaking a law but letting a little girl pat a dog is not illegal yet so they weren't breaking any laws. It was probebly a bit of every bodys fault that the dog attacked the girl the girl- she might of been doing something the dog didn't like the dog- he/ she made a mistake the adults supervising- they had not gotten their dog used to little children.
I think that the dog should not be put down because it could have been something the girl did that annoyed it so it attacked the girl. I also think that it was the parents fault for not telling the child to stop. they need to destroy the really vicious dog breeds that harm innocent victims regulary. I think that the adults shouldnt be charged but should have the dog taken off their hands and put it into a dog shelter and same with any other dogs that have attacked children or even adults
i think dogs should not be put down because it could have been something the girl did that annoyed it so it attacked the girl i also think that it was a parents fault for not telling the child to stop they need to destroy the really vicious dog breeds ash b
i dont think that the dog should be put down becuase it was no the dogs fault becuase dogs are very territorial and it was probably just marking its ground i think that the owner of the dog should still have to pay for her reconstructive face surgery BY JACK UPSTON
by jack upston i also think that they should be fined and the dog should be locked up in the kennel at there home and should not go out in public unless they have got a muzzel
I am sitting on the fence with this one. It’s usually the breed that’s the problem, because a poodle wouldn’t really aggressively attack someone, but a pitbull, dobberman or rottweiler would be a more likely breed. These “dangerous” breeds I think shouldn’t be “destroyed.”It’s only dogs that keep on attacking and the owner’s that have no control. It’s like humans, if they reoffend then they have more jail time, and that should also apply to dogs. If a dog has attacked more than once they need to be destroyed not ALL the dogs in that breed.
The owner’s of the dog do need some type of punishment, but every time a dog attack occurs the media is on top of it. If, like the neighbour says, the people are kind and the dog was unfamiliar with the child, I think that they will have learnt their lesson. I think a fine is enough, and now since the dog is gone and if they might consider buying a new dog, I’m sure that they will take everything that has happened in account and so an attack wouldn’t happen to them again because of them taking the necessary precautions.
Although a supervisor was with the child and the dog, it doesn’t mean that they can intervene quick enough and so then resulting in a death. The child has probably as much of a brain as the dog and relies on instinct so it is CERTAINLY not the child’s NOR the dog’s fault so meaning that the owners didn’t think twice before putting a dog well known for dog fighting and aggressive behaviour with a helpless child if something happens. It’s a NO brainer to realise the consequences. Just because the dog hasn’t attacked before doesn’t mean that the dog will never attack. Dogs change a lot and like humans can have a good and bad day and probably the dog had better day’s at that point.
It is life sentence for the victim if you have scars on your face/body.
they should be prosickuded and should go to jail i think the dog that herts someone should be killed because if they kill the dogs some dogs could be tame and some could kill so the dogs that kill should be putt down by quintin
I think that if there was a way the dog's actions could have been prevented then the owner needs to take responsibility and be charged.If people are buying a dog with a dangerous personality they need to make sure the dog is only taken to places where if it gets out of control it is no harm to anybody. Before people buy a dangerous dog they need to make sure the dog is well trained.From then if the dog does harm somebody it needs to be put down. Rose :D
I think that all dangerous dogs shouldnt be destroyed but maybe locked up if acting vicous. But i think the owners shouldnt be charged depending on the way it happened because if it was a accident or it wasnt the dogs fault then the owners shouldnt get charged, but otherwise they should be charged for the for the dogs actions.
I totally agree with Olivia D .. (hey that ryhmes) If there was a baby and a dog and the baby was continuisly hitting the dog on the head then the dog would be agitaited and attack. Therefore i would think about keeping the dog if the attack wasent horrific. If there was a dog and a baby, and the dog ran up and bitt the baby then the dog would go. In my opinion i think not all dogs should be destroyed but maybe we should look into how and which dogs behave in such a way. Maybe they were hiding something... maybe it wasent the dog.. it was the kid?
Dog attacks are not normal. If a dog attacks someone it should be put down or given over to the SPCA. But to stop this happening we need to teach children and dogs about the ways you should treat each other. All suposedly vicious dogs should not be destroyed they should have their chance just like humans do.I think that they should have criminal charge put against thembecause it is their responsibility to control their dog.
I think certain breads of dog should not be killed because they are concidered dangerous If there owner knows they are dangerous it shoulod be up to them to do something about it like put a muzzle on it or change it up ect. Thats just like saying because one human kills someone all humans similar be killesd to
I think that we should kill all dangerous dogs because there is to many dog attacts and many innocent people are scared for life both physically and emotionaly .If people let there dog off a lead and it attacks some one then it is the owners responsibility. So they should be charged .Not only dose a dog attack random people but it attacks family members, friends and small children .I shouldn't have to say any more because I have already stated that these dangerous dogs should be killed as they are harmful to you and other people .
After another dog attack I believe that people need to learn a lesson about dogs. They need to know that it doesn’t matter how friendly their dog or any other dog may look the person needs to be careful. Dogs are territorial they like dominance and power, if someone invades their space the dog will fight back with strength that can not be stopped. Cats are simular. Yet we don’t destroy their race. Tigers are also the same but instead of getting rid of them we protect them. Why should a dog be any different? But dogs can still be dangerous as I said before and they should never be misunderstood.
I think that the owners should be charged criminally for the actions of their animals because a little mistake can mean a big problem that can be found hard to fix. And people should not be letting their dog out of their sight for long enough for anyone to get hurt.
To stop this horrid thing from happening we need to put our dogs through an exam that teaches them how to be with other dogs, younger children and so on. It can’t cost too much or else no one will do the exam and all the money that is earned should go to the foundation of the blind to help the guide dogs train. Any dog that has not passed this exam should not be able to be sold until they have done the exam again and passed. That is my opinion, and I hope that the rules of buying and training a dog should be changed.
I think it’s the owners fault that there are dog attacks someone because if they let the child pat the dog. They should have pulled the child away from the dog before it attacked the child. And the owner should get punished or fined for their dogs actions. And other dog owners of dangerous breeds should do something about it like putting a muzzle on there dog. Or worst case scenario if the owner doesn’t trust their dog they should put it down. But I don't think dangerous dog breeds should be destroyed. But maybe make it compulsory for dangerous dog breeds to wear muzzles and if they don't the owners should get charged or put in prison.
There is no blog topic for this week but you are welcome to respond to my view on the above issue for a bonus 50 points.
I have very clear views about this issue. Firstly I have owned dogs in the past but do not own them now.
Dogs are territorial animals and need the right training, space, nutrition and exercise.
There are too many large dogs being kept in small areas including inside houses. They are often let loose in parks or allowed to walk without a lead in built up areas where people are going for walks and small children are playing. Owners allow them to urinate and defecate wherever they go.
People often own dogs (big dogs) without being able to afford to train or look after them properly. They introduction of very large often aggressive dogs from overseas may not have increased the incidence of dog attacks but certainly have increased the incidence of severe injuries from such attacks.
Owners have sole responsibility for owning their dog. A dog can be likened to owning a gun. If you don't keep your gun safely secure then it can get into the wrong hands. Or alternatively if you don't treat your gun with respect and use it correctly you can hurt others or yourself.
Dogs can main or kill people, especially small children. It does not really matter whether the small child is innocently leaning over to pat the dog or grabs the dog by the ear. If a dog attacks a human being (unless under extreme circumstances) it should be put down. You can't guarantee it won't do it again. And the owner should be charged with assault.
People need to learn that having a large dog in the city should not be seen as a way of protecting your home or intimidating others. Dogs should be pets, trained properly and treated with respect. And if people choose to own large dogs capable of severely injury people then they need to accept that they are responsible for it's actions.
I agree with you, Mr Spencer when you say that lots of big dogs are being kept in areas too small for their body size. People need to realise that owning a dog is not as easy as it seems and they need to know that to own a dog you need to have time to train it and give it a walk.
I think there needs to be a firm law on the places certain dogs are allowed to be taken. For some dogs it is in their nature to lash out at people when they get to close.By restricting the areas they can go to they are benefiting the public's protection and theirs.When buying a large or dangerous dog the buyer needs to prove they can provide for the dog and give it the right care. If the buyer does not meet the standards given they cannot purchase the dog. By taking big dogs into the city the owner is taking a massive risk.Putting hundreds of people at risk of attack.
I agree with you Mr Spencer when you say that dogs should be put down if they attack a person, even if the person was pulling his ear. Large and feirce dog breeds like pitbulls, alsatian, rottweiler etc should not be allowed to live if they bite or show bad behavior. The difference between a big dog or a small dog biteing is that when the small dog bites it doesn't take off your arm but when a big dog bites it does take off your arm.
I agree with you Mr. Spencer when you say that if people choose to own large dogs capable of severely injury people then they need to accept that they are responsible for its actions. If you own a dog that is prone to attacking people those people need to realise that having a small child in the same room or the same house is NOT a good idea, but I do believe that owners that face a dog attack in where someone in their family is hurt, will learn and have realised their mistake and that is a bad enough punishment in its self having a possibly disabled child in their family. A fine is enough.
People don’t have enough information when buying a puppy how large they can get. When they buy the puppy it is cute but they can become a big eater which costs a lot of money and then the dog can get neglected because it takes too much money to contain. When people have only a dog for many years the dog can become jealous if a small child/baby intrudes there space which can lead to an attack.
i agree with Mr. Spencer that dogs should be treated with respect and trained properly. bigger or more aggressive dogs should be kept under control and probably not taken to puplic areas very often because they could attack someone.
we should kill on nthe dogs in the all world thea there be no dogs attacks by ashley beattie
ReplyDeleteThe people should not be charged because it was the dog not the owner. It was not there fault because if the parent knew the dog breed was dangerous they should have told the child to stay away. but ther dog never shouldnt of bit them in the first place. So therefore the dog should get a 6 month dog prison sentence. It would be different if a person rearanged someones face they would not get put down so the dog should go to dog prison and the owner should face some fines.
ReplyDeleteSorry that took up a bit more room than i expected. -brad
ReplyDeleteI think that dog breeds that are considered dangerous should not be destroyed, because the dog might not have shown aggressive behaviour in the past and some farm owners might rely on that type of breed because of its behaviour. The owner of the dog should not be blamed because it was the dog not the person so a solution for it would be to muzzle it when its in public.
ReplyDeleteNo I don’t think any breed of dog should be “destroyed” because I think its wrong to put a animals live before a humans just because they attacked a little child. If any small child comes within a dog’s space they are capable of getting hurt because dogs are territorial, also toddlers do eyeball dogs witch is seen as a challenge to dogs. When small children are around dogs and irritate them, the dogs do not hesitate to attack them because they are there same size. I think owners should be charged for there animals actions because they should know when they obtain a dangerous dog breed they need to take extra caution.
ReplyDeletethe last one was SHANNONS =D =) =( =P
ReplyDeleteI think that it is fair for the owner of the dog to prosecute for their dog's actions because it is their responsibility to make sure that the dog has the appropriate training especially if it is a larger breed such as a bull mastive. Also the owner shouldn't be allowing younger children around dogs who could be potentially dangerous if the child might irritate the dog. This could also be helped by the government putting more laws in place for example you can only own certain breeds in the city, so owners would be more careful about choosing a safe breed for the environment they are in. Also I agree with Cam about destroying dangerous breeds because their aggressive nature is good for farming and hunting.
ReplyDeletei think it was the dog owners fault because it should have been tied up i dont think it had of been put down the owner should have had full responsibility over the dog if the owner couldnt handle it the owner should have gave the dog away
ReplyDeletei dont think that any breed of dogs should be destroyed just because a dog attacked a little child, because thats just like saying that if a human made a mistake during life that they would get killed, which no that doesnt happen so no dogs should be killed.
ReplyDeletei also think that if the owners know that their dog is a dangerous breed then they should either tie it up or put a harness over there mouths so that they cannot bite anyone.
i dont think the dog should be put down but maybe they could get a decent charge.
even if the child did something to agrivate the dog and make it attack.
the children need to learn as well, they need to learn that if they dont know the dog do not approach it.
yes i do think that the dog owners should be criminally charged but the dogs should not be put down.
i think all dogs that atack a person should be put down and if dog kennels breed dangerous dogs that may have a tenincy to atack the kennels should be fined a large sum of money and stop breeding that dog
ReplyDeletei think that if a dog bites anyone they should be punished and left alone for a couple of days but if a dog has riped the face of someone i think you would know wot to do. my dog bit my little sister and has still got a mark and debbie thinks that it was isys fault because he had not been around kids that much even tho he sleeps on my bed every night.he also bit my sisters arm and broke it but he was sleeping and having a seger and my sister came up to him aand grabed his colar which gave him a frite and my dad gave him a whip and left him in his kennel for a coupl of days and has never bit any one since not even tryed so in the end i think that they should not destroy the bread just use brute force to save the life of a breed of dog BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM BY TOM
ReplyDeleteThere so so many things to debate about on this subject but I think that in the end it is usually the child's fault for they are the ones that go right up into the dogs face and pull their ears and tails which is going to really aggravate animals lust like it would for yous I mean imagine if your minding your own business and some kid comes and Start annoying you and intruding your personal space .
ReplyDeleteA Lao you need to set boundaries you can't just say it was someone or something's else's fault I mean say your kid goes up and punches someone in the face and they punch him or her back you can't say it's their fault
I think that the owners should not be prosecuted as it is not there fault that their dog is easily provoked because of territorial fighting with babies and young children who do not know what dogs are capable of and I don't think that the dogs should be put down because that is murder and all they were doing was defending themselves but I think that some breeds of dogs who are more easily provoked or are slot more aggressive should not be able to be owned as that would ease the attacks. Also children should be kept away from dogs until they know that dogs are dangerous and could make them have plastic surgery and cause for them to have a disformed face
ReplyDeleteI don't think that dogs should be destroyed just if a little child pulled the dogs ears and the dog leapt out, not meaning to hurt anyone badly and accidentally got someone in the face!!! IT IS NOT FAIR!!!!! Poor Dogs!!!! If the dog is known to growl or not be friendly towards people they should either have a muzzle put on or be chained/tied up. I will continue this soon...
ReplyDeletelittle children don't know much about dogs and their language (tail upright, hackles raised) So if little children go into their territory, the dog might see this as a challenge and get aggressive. Different breeds would be provoked easier so the breeds that are the owners should be careful with them.
ReplyDeleteSTOP KILLING DOGS!!!!!!!!!
no i dont think that all the dangerous dog breeds should be destroyed because people who get sent to prison they get to live their lives in prison they dont get put down.and it is not the dogs fault if they get provoked then it is the thing or person that provoked the dog.
ReplyDeleteand the people wernt keeping an eye out four the child and dog.
by brooke
I would just lock the dog up in it's kennal then I would TEACH IT TO NOT ATTACK LITTLE KIDS.Because it's not fair to destroy a dog when it makes a mistake and not kill ourselves. They are still animals just like we are. If the little kid that it attacked needed loads of plastic surgery then i would sell or give the dog away to someone who has older siblings/children/cousins/family members etc. BUT NOT KILL IT!We dont know if the child was doing anything to annoy the dog.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't think that all the dog breeds considered dangerous should be killed just because of some dogs in that breed being vicious. With the proper training and obedience all dogs could be kind and not do vicious things. I think that the goverment should be more i dont know encoraging about getting your dog trained properly and instead of charging the owners of the dog the goverment should be making a law that with your permet to own a dog they have to be trained to a certain level.
I do think that owners should be charged if they were breaking a law but letting a little girl pat a dog is not illegal yet so they weren't breaking any laws. It was probebly a bit of every bodys fault that the dog attacked the girl
the girl- she might of been doing something the dog didn't like
the dog- he/ she made a mistake
the adults supervising- they had not gotten their dog used to little children.
I think that the dog should not be put down because it could have been something the girl did that annoyed it so it attacked the girl. I also think that it was the parents fault for not telling the child to stop. they need to destroy the really vicious dog breeds that harm innocent victims regulary. I think that the adults shouldnt be charged but should have the dog taken off their hands and put it into a dog shelter and same with any other dogs that have attacked children or even adults
ReplyDeletei think dogs should not be put down because it could have been something the girl did that annoyed it so it attacked the girl i also think that it was a parents fault for not telling the child to stop they need to destroy the really vicious dog breeds ash b
ReplyDeletei dont think that the dog should be put down becuase it was no the dogs fault becuase dogs are very territorial and it was probably just marking its ground i think that the owner of the dog should still have to pay for her reconstructive face surgery BY JACK UPSTON
ReplyDeleteby jack upston i also think that they should be fined and the dog should be locked up in the kennel at there home and should not go out in public unless they have got a muzzel
ReplyDeleteI COULD NOT GET ON TO MY GOOGLE ACCOUNT FOR SOME REASON BY JACK UPSTON
ReplyDeleteI am sitting on the fence with this one. It’s usually the breed that’s the problem, because a poodle wouldn’t really aggressively attack someone, but a pitbull, dobberman or rottweiler would be a more likely breed. These “dangerous” breeds I think shouldn’t be “destroyed.”It’s only dogs that keep on attacking and the owner’s that have no control. It’s like humans, if they reoffend then they have more jail time, and that should also apply to dogs. If a dog has attacked more than once they need to be destroyed not ALL the dogs in that breed.
ReplyDeleteThe owner’s of the dog do need some type of punishment, but every time a dog attack occurs the media is on top of it. If, like the neighbour says, the people are kind and the dog was unfamiliar with the child, I think that they will have learnt their lesson. I think a fine is enough, and now since the dog is gone and if they might consider buying a new dog, I’m sure that they will take everything that has happened in account and so an attack wouldn’t happen to them again because of them taking the necessary precautions.
Although a supervisor was with the child and the dog, it doesn’t mean that they can intervene quick enough and so then resulting in a death. The child has probably as much of a brain as the dog and relies on instinct so it is CERTAINLY not the child’s NOR the dog’s fault so meaning that the owners didn’t think twice before putting a dog well known for dog fighting and aggressive behaviour with a helpless child if something happens. It’s a NO brainer to realise the consequences. Just because the dog hasn’t attacked before doesn’t mean that the dog will never attack. Dogs change a lot and like humans can have a good and bad day and probably the dog had better day’s at that point.
It is life sentence for the victim if you have scars on your face/body.
Nick!!!!!!!!!!!:)
they should be prosickuded and should go to jail i think the dog that herts someone should be killed because if they kill the dogs some dogs could be tame and some could kill so the dogs that kill should be putt down
ReplyDeleteby quintin
I think that if there was a way the dog's actions could have been prevented then the owner needs to take responsibility and be charged.If people are buying a dog with a dangerous personality they need to make sure the dog is only taken to places where if it gets out of control it is no harm to anybody. Before people buy a dangerous dog they need to make sure the dog is well trained.From then if the dog does harm somebody it needs to be put down.
ReplyDeleteRose :D
I think that all dangerous dogs shouldnt be destroyed but maybe locked up if acting vicous.
ReplyDeleteBut i think the owners shouldnt be charged depending on the way it happened because if it was a accident or it wasnt the dogs fault then the owners shouldnt get charged, but otherwise they should be charged for the for the dogs actions.
I totally agree with Olivia D .. (hey that ryhmes)
ReplyDeleteIf there was a baby and a dog and the baby was continuisly hitting the dog on the head then the dog would be agitaited and attack. Therefore i would think about keeping the dog if the attack wasent horrific.
If there was a dog and a baby, and the dog ran up and bitt the baby then the dog would go.
In my opinion i think not all dogs should be destroyed but maybe we should look into how and which dogs behave in such a way. Maybe they were hiding something... maybe it wasent the dog.. it was the kid?
I COULD NOT GET ONTO MY GOOGLE ACCOUNT EITHER.
ReplyDeleteSame here Jack U and Alakaii! Couldn't log in!
ReplyDeleteDog attacks are not normal. If a dog attacks someone it should be put down or given over to the SPCA. But to stop this happening we need to teach children and dogs about the ways you should treat each other. All suposedly vicious dogs should not be destroyed they should have their chance just like humans do.I think that they should have criminal charge put against thembecause it is their responsibility to control their dog.
ReplyDeleteI think certain breads of dog should not be killed because they are concidered dangerous If there owner knows they are dangerous it shoulod be up to them to do something about it like put a muzzle on it or change it up ect.
ReplyDeleteThats just like saying because one human kills someone all humans similar be killesd to
I think that we should kill all dangerous dogs because there is to many dog attacts and many innocent people are scared for life both physically and emotionaly .If people let there dog off a lead and it attacks some one then it is the owners responsibility. So they should be charged .Not only dose a dog attack random people but it attacks family members, friends and small children .I shouldn't have to say any more because I have already stated that these dangerous dogs should be killed as they are harmful to you and other people .
ReplyDeleteAfter another dog attack I believe that people need to learn a lesson about dogs. They need to know that it doesn’t matter how friendly their dog or any other dog may look the person needs to be careful.
ReplyDeleteDogs are territorial they like dominance and power, if someone invades their space the dog will fight back with strength that can not be stopped.
Cats are simular. Yet we don’t destroy their race.
Tigers are also the same but instead of getting rid of them we protect them.
Why should a dog be any different?
But dogs can still be dangerous as I said before and they should never be misunderstood.
I think that the owners should be charged criminally for the actions of their animals because a little mistake can mean a big problem that can be found hard to fix. And people should not be letting their dog out of their sight for long enough for anyone to get hurt.
To stop this horrid thing from happening we need to put our dogs through an exam that teaches them how to be with other dogs, younger children and so on. It can’t cost too much or else no one will do the exam and all the money that is earned should go to the foundation of the blind to help the guide dogs train. Any dog that has not passed this exam should not be able to be sold until they have done the exam again and passed.
That is my opinion, and I hope that the rules of buying and training a dog should be changed.
Saskia
I think it’s the owners fault that there are dog attacks someone because if they let the child pat the dog. They should have pulled the child away from the dog before it attacked the child. And the owner should get punished or fined for their dogs actions. And other dog owners of dangerous breeds should do something about it like putting a muzzle on there dog. Or worst case scenario if the owner doesn’t trust their dog they should put it down. But I don't think dangerous dog breeds should be destroyed. But maybe make it compulsory for dangerous dog breeds to wear muzzles and if they don't the owners should get charged or put in prison.
ReplyDeleteWinner of this weeks 'comment of the week', goes to
ReplyDeleteSaskia for her detailed explanation of how she views the issue. You were articulate and made an excellent case. 250 points
Nick -second 100 points
Ari -third 50 points
There is no blog topic for this week but you are welcome to respond to my view on the above issue for a bonus 50 points.
ReplyDeleteI have very clear views about this issue. Firstly I have owned dogs in the past but do not own them now.
Dogs are territorial animals and need the right training, space, nutrition and exercise.
There are too many large dogs being kept in small areas including inside houses. They are often let loose in parks or allowed to walk without a lead in built up areas where people are going for walks and small children are playing. Owners allow them to urinate and defecate wherever they go.
People often own dogs (big dogs) without being able to afford to train or look after them properly. They introduction of very large often aggressive dogs from overseas may not have increased the incidence of dog attacks but certainly have increased the incidence of severe injuries from such attacks.
Owners have sole responsibility for owning their dog. A dog can be likened to owning a gun. If you don't keep your gun safely secure then it can get into the wrong hands. Or alternatively if you don't treat your gun with respect and use it correctly you can hurt others or yourself.
Dogs can main or kill people, especially small children. It does not really matter whether the small child is innocently leaning over to pat the dog or grabs the dog by the ear. If a dog attacks a human being (unless under extreme circumstances) it should be put down. You can't guarantee it won't do it again. And the owner should be charged with assault.
People need to learn that having a large dog in the city should not be seen as a way of protecting your home or intimidating others. Dogs should be pets, trained properly and treated with respect. And if people choose to own large dogs capable of severely injury people then they need to accept that they are responsible for it's actions.
I agree with you, Mr Spencer when you say that lots of big dogs are being kept in areas too small for their body size.
ReplyDeletePeople need to realise that owning a dog is not as easy as it seems and they need to know that to own a dog you need to have time to train it and give it a walk.
I think there needs to be a firm law on the places certain dogs are allowed to be taken. For some dogs it is in their nature to lash out at people when they get to close.By restricting the areas they can go to they are benefiting the public's protection and theirs.When buying a large or dangerous dog the buyer needs to prove they can provide for the dog and give it the right care. If the buyer does not meet the standards given they cannot purchase the dog. By taking big dogs into the city the owner is taking a massive risk.Putting hundreds of people at risk of attack.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Mr Spencer when you say that dogs should be put down if they attack a person, even if the person was pulling his ear.
ReplyDeleteLarge and feirce dog breeds like pitbulls, alsatian, rottweiler etc should not be allowed to live if they bite or show bad behavior. The difference between a big dog or a small dog biteing is that when the small dog bites it doesn't take off your arm but when a big dog bites it does take off your arm.
I agree with you Mr. Spencer when you say that if people choose to own large dogs capable of severely injury people then they need to accept that they are responsible for its actions. If you own a dog that is prone to attacking people those people need to realise that having a small child in the same room or the same house is NOT a good idea, but I do believe that owners that face a dog attack in where someone in their family is hurt, will learn and have realised their mistake and that is a bad enough punishment in its self having a possibly disabled child in their family. A fine is enough.
ReplyDeletePeople don’t have enough information when buying a puppy how large they can get. When they buy the puppy it is cute but they can become a big eater which costs a lot of money and then the dog can get neglected because it takes too much money to contain. When people have only a dog for many years the dog can become jealous if a small child/baby intrudes there space which can lead to an attack.
Nick!
i agree with Mr. Spencer that dogs should be treated with respect and trained properly. bigger or more aggressive dogs should be kept under control and probably not taken to puplic areas very often because they could attack someone.
ReplyDelete