Animation Source Forums

How about Owner Specific Legislation instead of Breed Specific Legislation?
i.e.:
Any owner who had abused a dog (or any animal) should be banned from owning any animal forever.

An owner who's dog had committed an unprovoked attack-they should be assessed and depending on the results even the same as above or some education before they get another dog.

Only experienced and/or educated owners should be allowed to own breeds or breeds that need more/stronger training than others.

and NO criminal should ever be allowed to have a dog-or any animal.

But the politicians wont listen, they listen to nobody but themselves.



Sheba

Yep, and it's so sad. Once again, I like your thinking. What a shame that the ones in power don't have this kind of logic.

People who've been proven guilty of any form of unrightful mistreatment of animals, shouldn't be allowed to own any animal for good.
I agree with that.
But when it comes to criminals in general not being allowed to own animals, it would really depend if the crime was similiar to mistreatment of animals. If you robbed a bank and owned two healthy pet cows, you should be allowed to keep your cows, because how in the world does robbing a bank have to do with mistreatment of animals? If you were accused of using an illegal drug in your house (Which happened to be infested with rats.) then you shouldn't be allowed to keep any animals.

Spark-BSP your right, but violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to keep animals.
Thanx

Sheba

It all depends on what you hope to achieve. If your ultimate objective is the well being of certain breeds (or just their very existence), you should go OSL. But if you want to ensure maximum public security (avoid children getting bitten), why not combine Owner Specific Legislation and Breed Specific Legislation? I mean, lets face it: 'certain' breeds attract a 'certain' kind of owner; the majority of people who want a pit bull (to name one) don't value it because it can be a cute pet. And the only way to combat that is BSL. And to filter out the negligent owners who own other breeds than those mentioned in the BSL, an OSL could be put into place, thus maximizing public security.

ps:

Do you live in China? I mean, in a democracy, that just isn't true.

Cogitor, I disagree.
If we exterminate all the dogs on the BSL list, the bad owners will find other dogs torment and turn into dangerous breeds, that's why BSL is not appropriate.

AS for the"politicians won't listen thing, ok, i admit I exaggerated bit there. I live in UK and New Zealand, Democratic countries, and from what I have seen they don't listen to Dog experts.

Sheba

That's true, the bad owners will continue to be just that, but that's why I wanted to combine OSL and BSL; the OSL will take care of those owners who "will find other dogs torment and turn into dangerous breeds". I fully agree that this solution is not perfect, but I think that it is the best way to minimize the number of attacks on humans.

But as I said, here I was thinking from a 'politician's point of view', where the human well-being (the voter's well being) is most important. But if you think that the (marginal) reduction of mortal attacks on humans is not worth 'sacrificing' a number of breeds for, then I can see why you would want to go OSL-only. But I, on the other hand, just don't think keeping those races is worth the potential cost (to draw the link to the gun-ownership debate: I do indeed think that the potential cost of free gun-ownership is too hight to allow free ownership of firearms).
By the way, the 'extermination' you mentioned is most likely to be a gradual process where the members of targeted races are kept from mating rather than outright destroyed. But it is still an extermination, that's true.

ps: as for the democracy thing: sorry, that was a little rude of me. But where I live, there is a fairly strong animal-rights lobby (the Dutch even have an 'Animal Party [Partij voor de Dieren]' with two seats in their lower parliament!). I just assumed that the same was true in other western countries.