If factory owners negligently allowed machines to do to employees the same sorts of injuries that people's dogs do to innocent passers-by the authorities would be trying very hard to put them in jail. But when those injuries are caused by someone's pooch it's somehow different.
People's motive for keeping dogs of savage or dangerous breeds isn't usually because they make cute and cuddly family pets. They keep them for their ability to inflict harm on any person they would want harmed. They keep them to pose a threat against intruders and possible attackers. They may well love their pet as a family member. Nevertheless, their dog helps them to feel safe and powerful.
Having obtained a dog for such purposes they are hardly going to turn it into a wimp. They will generally try to foster the dog's threatening and attacking qualities directed towards territorial defence. They believe that they can keep the animal under reliable control.
We have seen many times that when the human falls down, even momentarily, in managing their canine weapon, which is largely what their pet is, an innocent human can be grievously wounded. We have also seen many times that dog owners’ control over their dog can be far less reliable than they thought.
Dog lobbies are very powerful. Advocates construct a battering-ram of pet-loving, sentimental arguments which they mercilessly smash against the merest hint of dog control laws. They raise spectres of totalitarian government and they unashamedly hide behind spurious reasoning. They insist that responsible dog owners ought not to be penalised for the actions of irresponsible ones, but they offer no sensible and practical alternative solutions. These arguments effectively fog the fact that each dog owner is considered to be the responsible kind right up to the moment when their beloved pet attacks and maims someone.
These self-interested pressure groups ought not to be given an effective power of veto over laws designed for interest of the majority. Yet in Australia, legislators won't tackle them for fear of getting bitten.
Governments have made a great deal of noise about effective dog controls but attacks still happen and horrendous injuries still occur. Civil action cannot be relied upon as a form of preventive justice.
It is high time that legislators took their teeth out of solution jars, replaced them in their mouths and bit back very hard against irresponsible or negligent dog owners. The gummy efforts we have witnessed so far are cowardly cop-outs.
Each dog should have a registered supervisor who accepts total responsibility at all times for ensuring public safety from injury, either physical or psychological, caused by their pet. That responsibility must remain even when their dog is not under their immediate supervision.
Penalties for supervisors failing to guarantee safety of the public from injury by their dog need to be mandatory and severe. 'Public' must include their own children.
