Should a person be charged for their dogs actions?
 

I'm not talking about civil citations or warnings from AC but when a serious incident occurs how should the individual be held liable? The is a serious issue because one bad apple ends up determining how city council's look at our breed in general. So if a person is held individually responsible either criminally or something a little more than a stern talking to from AC then that put's a damper on BSL right or wrong?

(don't know how else to ask with out getting my post taken down)

I totally believe the owner should be held responsible.

Yes, the owner should be held reliable and are in most cases here. But unfortunately that doesn't stop BSL from being proposed/passed.

I don't see how holding a person responsible for their dogs actions has anything to do with BSL.

Regardless of what breed it is, if a dog does something that the owner could have prevented, then yes, the owner should 100% be held responsible.

If I'm an idiot and I let my Lab get out and it attacks somebody, then I should pay for all medical costs and be fined with letting my dog get lose and with investigation, determine if the dog is dangerous.

Doesn't matter the breed, the owner should be held responsible.

Well majority of "bad owners" that allow their dogs to be in incidents tend to be the ones with dogs that are suggested for BSL hence pits, rotties, etc. So if more owners are charged with harsher penalties then it will/should weed out the rotten apples allowing no need for BSL because there are lesser or none at all accidents?

I don't think that will work. People are always going to be misinformed and "hate" the things that they are ignorant about/afraid of.

I certainty believe the owner should be held responsible

I agree with situational as well because this is what allows such high numbers for "bite statistics". Alot of times certain breeds are at the top of the "list" for bites but yet situations are not taking in to considerations as much as the breed or breed mix is. Preventative measure's are needed none the less but allowing harsher penalties for ownership would help.

This is coming from a story I'm following out of NC and a owner was held liable but yet people still are blaming the wrong thing the animal. I am trying to help build more knowledge to present rebuttals at the town meeting.

I took the question to not mean responsibility ending at covering costs, but owners being charged with aggrivated assault or grevous bodily harm or something if their dog were to attack someone else. Unless there were mitigating circumstances then I say go for it. Treat the actions of the dog as if they were the actions of the owner. It won't hurt those who are responsible enough to safely own a dog.

Yes,unless it involves the dog doing something to a cat,in which case who cares?http://www.pitbull-chat.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

Seriously though,I do think there are certain situations (a dog mauling an outdoor cat,for example)Where people make too big a deal out of shit.I mean dogs are dogs.A person shouldn't be subject to punishment because their dog ate someones cat,its a dog it's what they do.

Yes, the owner needs to be responsible your dog, you trained him, your problem

Yep. Your dog, your responsability.

Exactly!

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

I agree if the cat is on your and your dogs property. If your dog kills a cat off of your property, I think the owner should be held liable for killing someone elses pet.

yeah,Izzy killed a cat once (was in my yard) and while I did feel bad that the woman lost her pet,I just don't understand some people's reasoning.You let the cat roam free,you should understand that something might happen to it.It's like people forget that animals are animals,they fight,kill and eat each other sometimes.

lol

I too believe the owner should be held accountable for their pets actions.

Not if that cat is roaming. IMO the cat owner would be equally as responsible and guilty for the cats death.