Page 1 of 1

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:14 am
by Hardi
I believe that in some countries exist such laws. I'm not sure, I don't remember exactly but I believe, that here in estonia one person who not feed own horses was banned owning animals. (brrr... englis is so hard) I don't but almost never my dog to lead. I just have a bazooka. And if my dog ton't kill dangerous beoples who vant sue me, because I don't but my dog to lead, or because my dog barking. Then I kill self those persons before thei can sue me.

Actually I think: Must teach peoples allreadyk in kindregarten, how to act with anymals and owning anymals. There is not needed laws, like that u must keep your dog on leads or muzzled. here in my hometown is this law. I think It's owners responsiblyti. If owner feels tha't he/she can trust his dog, then it's not my business, at least so far when nobody don't atack me. And even when dog atack, then its not always dogs or owners fault. some beoples is just so stupid. Really peoples must learn how to act with dangerous dogs.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:55 am
by Shazzam
In Australia all dogs have to walked on a lead. I think this is a great idea (we also have to use poop scoops and place their dodoos in bins). Dogs also aren't allowed to roam the streets and have to be microchipped and registered by Councils for ownership reasons. If you walk and play with you dog everyday; they don't miss roaming around.

Dogs get hurt too! So it is as much for their safety as others.

A penny from me

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:14 am
by sky888walker
Basic logic...

Can a pet assume any responsibility ??

If the answer yes, then its owner should break up a bottle of sampagne and toast coz obviously he/she will be the most luckiest man/woman on earth.

Unfortunately, the answer is no, so, for sure its owner should assume full responsibility for whatever reason.

Case closed.. lol.. next case, please.

Re: A penny from me

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:36 pm
by Shazzam
sky888walker wrote:Basic logic...

Can a pet assume any responsibility ??

If the answer yes, then its owner should break up a bottle of sampagne and toast coz obviously he/she will be the most luckiest man/woman on earth.

Unfortunately, the answer is no, so, for sure its owner should assume full responsibility for whatever reason.

Case closed.. lol.. next case, please.
Exactly, :lol: they are unpredictable. We are the owners and with ownership comes responsibility! Yahoo;;; well said!!

Re: It depends...

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:39 pm
by Shazzam
simplyblessedwithlove wrote:
Prometheus wrote:In my opinion it depends on the situation. For example, if my dog had attacked and killed Mother Teresa, then I should have been held responsible. But if my dog attacked and killed George Bush Jnr (or Snr for that matter) then George Bush should be held responsible (posthumously, of course) and I should be given a Nobel prize.
I know you're trying to be funny, but personally, I don't think it's ok to say that. I'm not a fan of Bush family; however, it doesn't mean I do feel right to kill him. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter who you've killed. If a person is evilly dangerous, that person should be siezed by the laws.
I think you need to re-read the comments; they were a joke. I don't think this person meant it literally plus I don't think he would personally go and kill anyone. Just a generalisation. :lol: ;)

Re: It depends...

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:26 pm
by Guest
shazzam1452 wrote:
simplyblessedwithlove wrote:
Prometheus wrote:In my opinion it depends on the situation. For example, if my dog had attacked and killed Mother Teresa, then I should have been held responsible. But if my dog attacked and killed George Bush Jnr (or Snr for that matter) then George Bush should be held responsible (posthumously, of course) and I should be given a Nobel prize.
I know you're trying to be funny, but personally, I don't think it's ok to say that. I'm not a fan of Bush family; however, it doesn't mean I do feel right to kill him. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter who you've killed. If a person is evilly dangerous, that person should be siezed by the laws.
I think you need to re-read the comments; they were a joke. I don't think this person meant it literally plus I don't think he would personally go and kill anyone. Just a generalisation. :lol: ;)
Image Booooooooooooo to you! I said I knew he was trying to be funny. Image Now am I funny or what??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

simplyblessed ???

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:23 am
by sky888walker
Oh, sorry, i dont know that simplyblessed was also trying to be funny...

Can i laugh now... ??

ha ha ha

Should you be responsible for your pets.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:31 am
by Shazzam
Arale wrote:
wonki wrote:
So~! if the owners don't want to take responsibility, i want to say this, DO NOT OWN A PET!!!
wonki, how can you ban them from owning pets? There is no rule. Do you have any method then?

_Arale_
In Australia this week three breeds of dogs have been banned in this Country due to increasing numbers of attacks on children over the past several years. Anyone owning these dogs now has to have them neutered to prevent breeding. This will eventually eliminate this breed of dog in Australia.

The were mostly American Pit Bull Terriers.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 5:58 am
by Coolfish
Sure, the owner should be responsible for the pets' behaviour. In most case, the owner likes his pet. Just like his children, should they be responsible for their children's behaviour? Definitely the answer is Yes.

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:04 am
by Yan999
Yes, the owner should be responsible for their pets, especially dangerous pets, i think government should have some policy for it, such as : can not keep dangerous pets, should be in trace for all of the pets.
i dont like to keep pets for a long time.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:36 pm
by Shazzam
Yan999 wrote:i dont like to keep pets for a long time.
Good grief what do you do with them when you are finished with them? :P

Re: Should you be responsible for your pets.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:34 pm
by MissLT
shazzam1452 wrote: The were mostly American Pit Bull Terriers.
Some just attacked 12 years-old little boy and killed him when he was locked in the basement with that stupid dog for his punishment. The story is really sad. I'll find a link to share with you when I'm back. Kinda busy now. Anyway, the bottom line of that story is Pitt Bulls will be watched. And that mother, gosh, some mothers are monsters. She didn't even grip over her son's death. I think she should be punished instead of that dog.

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:07 am
by MissLT

Re: Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behaviour?

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:50 pm
by Vale
The biggest problem with the behavior of some pets is definitely the owner, not the pet. Every dog can become dangerous in bad hands, in my opinion animal cruelty is a reflection of human cruelty! All over the world there are crimes and things like that committed by people, but we don`t kill them, why should we do that with animals?

Re: Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behavio

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:31 am
by Krisi
I think, it is necessary that dangerous dogs be lead and muzzled in public places. The owners will always be responsible for the behaviour of their pets.

Re: Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behavio

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:05 am
by MissLT
They say there is no irresponsible pet, only irresponsible owner.

Re: Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behavio

Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:48 am
by emresenoglu
Pets especially dogs must be walk with their owners and never be free, if they live in the city. Dog owners can free their dogs in their garden.

Re: Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behavio

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:16 am
by sweethuman
I dont think so that they owners should be held responsible, because they are animals and they dont have brain/wisdom, They can do anything at any moment.