Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behaviour?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Shazzam]

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, they are unpredictable. We are the owners and with ownership comes responsibility! Yahoo;;; well said!!

[Shazzam]

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.

[Guest]

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.

Booooooooooooo to you! I said I knew he was trying to be funny. Now am I funny or what???

[sky888walker]

Oh, sorry, i dont know that simplyblessed was also trying to be funny...

Can i laugh now... ??

ha ha ha

[Shazzam]

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.

[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.

[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.