FINES are fine to curb some social ills.
But when it comes to the control of potentially dangerous animals, it’s time for us to get tougher.
That’s why I say let’s jail owners who let their dogs get out of control.
Currently, if an owner of a dog belonging to the Part II category of potentially dangerous breeds (which includes rottweilers, bull terriers and German shepherds) does not muzzle the animal in public, he can be fined up to $5,000. If the animal is not leashed, again, the fine can be $5,000.
Fair enough, if no one gets hurt. But what if the animal injures someone - perhaps seriously?
Last year, a Siberian husky attacked a 3-year-old at a Sentosa beach, tearing off part of the toddler’s ear.
Its owner was fined $2,500 for allowing the dog in public without a muzzle.
In comparison, if you jaywalk, it is possible for you to end up behind bars.
Jaywalkers can be fined $20 on the spot by the Traffic Police. Those convicted can be fined up to $1,000 and risk a jail term of up to three months.
Small girl gets maimed, offender pays fine. You cross the road at the wrong place, you may do time.
Doesn’t sound quite right, does it?
And since those whose actions put others at risk of grave harm (reckless drivers, drug pushers, and so on) can already be jailed, why not errant dog owners?
There are those who advocate a ban on all potentially dangerous breeds of dogs here.
Training
Dog lovers, however, believe that most owners do train their dogs properly and that fierce dogs such as rottweilers are actually very sociable.
Try telling that to illusionist Roy Horn.
In 2003, a white bengal tiger made headlines when it attacked the Las Vegas entertainer, one half of the world-famous Siegfried & Roy, during a magic show.
The 7-year-old tiger, which was raised and trained by Horn since it was a cub, bit into Horn’s neck and dragged him off stage. Horn sustained serious injuries that left him partially paralysed.
Many pundits said the tiger went ‘crazy’ during the show. But comedian Chris Rock had a different take. Commenting on the incident, he once said: ‘The tiger didn’t go crazy. The tiger went tiger.’
According to this view, it’s the human who was crazy to take such a risk. Animals will be animals. They’re not robots. You can train them all you want, but when that wild streak gets loose, all bets are off.
While I think there is still a case to be made against a total ban on the Part II category breeds, I don’t think I would shed a tear if it came to pass.
And when it comes down to it, the parent in me trumps the animal lover in me.
If you trust a rottweiler or a German shepherd enough to let it come within petting range of a young child, you’re a bolder - or more foolhardy - man than I.
So, let’s not be quick to decry the proposals of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) to have stricter rules for those who want to own rottweilers.
Many dog lovers have cried foul, saying that rottweilers shouldn’t be the only breeds to have their regulatory leashes tightened. This makes sense, since there are other breeds that can be aggressive in public.
Others have called on authorities not to blame the dogs but to blame their owners.
Yes, the owners have a huge part to play in this. And AVA’s proposed rules for the dogs may not be enough.
Indeed, the move may even backfire. The proposed insurance policies of at least $100,000 to cover any damage or injury the dogs may cause works out to an annual premium of about $180. There’s also a need for a banker’s guarantee of $2,000 which can be forfeited.
But what if all this just makes owners more lax?
Anyone who can afford to buy rottweiler puppies for sums in excess of the $2,000 guarantee will certainly be able to pay any fine relatively painlessly.
If we want to instil greater social responsibility in these owners, jail would be a better deterrent.
http://www.tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,183769,00.html?