Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behaviour?

Monthly topics for discussion

Moderators: Vega, Krisi, TalkingPoint

Shanghai Phillip


Post by Shanghai Phillip » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:15 am

Hello Everyone:
"Pets," companion animals, reflect the nature (behavior) of the person taking care of the animal. If the animal if raised gently they will behave gently. Almost all animals who are kept as "pets" will not harm others if they are being taken care of properly. It is the owners RESPONSIBILTY and duty to do this. Animals have feelings and can feel pain. So, please, take care of animals, give them shelter, feed them, and they will be nice to everyone.


animals and animosity

Post by erikawe » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:20 pm

I found the talking point about animals very well organised and useful for a conversation class at intermediate to high.intermediate level.



pets should be trained well

Post by muafiqur_roi » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:28 am

the owners should be responsible in case their pets harm people. in my opinion pets are animals , and animal is not a mankind. However tamed they are or how well they are trained the are still animal, and they sometimes loose their good behaviour, cos human being even sometimes loose their mind. So whey they are out, they should be under control of their owners. Problems occured due to the pets, it's the owners responsibility.



Re: Animals

Post by Neniuxss » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:30 pm

Shanghai Phillip wrote:Hello Everyone:
"Pets," companion animals, reflect the nature (behavior) of the person taking care of the animal. If the animal if raised gently they will behave gently. Almost all animals who are kept as "pets" will not harm others if they are being taken care of properly. It is the owners RESPONSIBILTY and duty to do this. Animals have feelings and can feel pain. So, please, take care of animals, give them shelter, feed them, and they will be nice to everyone.

I totally agree with you! Pets are wonderful creatures....but clearly, not everyone should be allowed to have one. If something bad happens, It is the human's responsability, not the animal's.If one has had the pleasure of bonding with one's pet, one understands the joy and the worries its company carries.
People who do not like animals should`nt own any.
I totally agree with the quote: "Children are for people who cannot have pets."

Best regards.



Post by costadina » Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:43 pm

I have a pet dog, she wouldn't hurt a fly. She has never bitten or scratched anyone on purpose. However, like all animals she will attack if threatened. If a normally friendly pet is abused, it will turn against that person who abuses it. There are some animals that are aggressive in nature, though. Some breeds are used for protection. These should definately be kept muzzled. There have been to many instances when a "pet" pit bull or doberman bit or maulled a person. In those cases the owners were responsible. As to having pets put away, only if they have rabies.


Post by A.Junior » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:04 am

Sometimes, it's very dangerous to have pets at home. The cats, the dogs, the parrots must be well trainned in order to not bitting people.



Post by blacky » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:52 am

I was born in a little village and my parents had
a farm. We had cows, chicken, sheeps. Sheeps are
not studpid. They always came home alone and knew
exactly, where their food is.


what thw

Post by Graham » Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:30 pm

:twisted: anyway happy halloween i am looking for whyt dangourus pets should not be kept as pets for an english project so What the heck am i doing here 'm in 7th grade



Post by eucheria » Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:33 pm

I thank all the English Club members for welcoming and making one of them.

I want to say that animals tame or wild are originally created to be subject unto man. The ones man is able to tame supose to be a helper and friendly to man.

The dangerous ones like dog, snake, lion, etc. should be guided. The ones that need leads be given leads or bridle and the ones that should be chained be chained. If by any reason any of these animals grows wild and unfriendly, cursing accidents, the owner should be blamed :idea: .



pets are wonderful!!!

Post by silvia » Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:42 pm

Hi everyone!!
Definitely this is a wonderful time to tell you that even our small or big pets are with us all the time, they feel, they feel hungry and sometimes angry though :wink: so, for this reason, it is very important that we as part of their family are nice to them and of course they will appreciatte that too and respond in the same way. :) bye, bye, Silvia from Mexico



Post by solomon » Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:50 am

In my opinion the owner should be responsible for his own Pet.
Every body must understand the behaviour of his pet. If the pet is dangerous the pet should be muzzeld. Any way I don't like to have freindship with animals because I can establish freind shipp with people.

Hamza Arif

Pet & Animals

Post by Hamza Arif » Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:48 pm

Hello friends,
Pets, as we all know are domestic animals. Some people keep them not only for pleasure but to make show of their wealth, as an expensive and rare animals only those people can keep who have much money. But the people who keep pets to show off, pleasure or company completely forget that these pets can injure badly someone. So the people who keep pets should never tamed or practice the pets of biting or fighting and pet owner should avoid to accompanied them in the public places to reduced the cased of injuring in this regard. Pet’s owner should try to avoid the dangerous animals like snakes, lions, etc to be their pets. Similarly the pets, used to bite so their owners should keep muzzled their pets for safety. I think the owners are much responsible for behavior for their pets. If the owners keep their pets in care like owners take care of their pets food, health etc then I don’t think so pets will behave badly. But if the health conditions of pets aren’t cure able like if a pet’s disease is incurable or its mental condition isn’t good then I think pet must be put down. Because its kill ness will in the favoure of its owner’s as well as in public’s favoure.
Hamza Arif Pakistan

carlos ruiz

animals and animosity

Post by carlos ruiz » Thu Nov 27, 2003 6:59 pm

I agree with the majority. Animalsl shouldn't be blamed for animosity and in fact, for almost anything.
What can we think about wars? are animals responsible for?/



Post by eclub777 » Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:59 am


Silver Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:37 pm

Post by Mandy2 » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:26 pm

Anyone who ‘only’ uses a breed's reputation to say that it should be banned is only using that reputation as excuse for a poor understanding of animal behavior. Most dogs, regardless of breed will bite/attack if they are raised in a home that provides poor socialization and/or lack of leadership or if they feel threatened.

I think that certain people would not provide the proper home for such a breed, and should therefore, not own one. Those who want the animal to supplement their own aggression/power should think again, and buy a goldfish. Educate yourself about the breed you want to own, and then put the work into the dog to have it become a loved and valued member of your family. Like children, dogs know what they are taught, or in most instances, not taught. Irresonsible breeding can be as much to blame as irresponsible animal training. A conscious pet owner not only researches the breeds characteristics, but also the breeders philosophy and reputation.

I think if somebody is attacked by a dog it is often their fault or the dogs owner. If the owner let's the dog loose, takes a violent dog out in public without leash or muzzle, or keeps it in a poorly contained area then it's their fault if the dog harms someone. However if you go to someones house and let your children run up to a dog while it's eating, or let your kid jump up and down on a dog while it's sleeping you're setting yourself up for disaster. I believe it is my responsibility first and foremost to make sure my child is safe, just like I buckle him into his carseat not because i'm a bad driver, but because I don't know who out there is driving recklessly.

I don't think that a ban for certain breeds is the “perfect” solution, because every dog can “flip out” when it feels threatened or cornered. Some people are attracted to vicious looking dogs and buy, train and/or breed them to encourage that behaviour. It's the people who raise and train the dogs that are largely responsible for their behaviour. Lack of training is also often a factor. Dogs, by their very nature, are predators. They practise that behaviour in play as puppies. If they are not taught otherwise, they grow into 'big puppies' and continue the behviour as well as trying to be 'head dog'. Then, it's often too late to retrain them. And it's not their fault for acting on their instincts.


Re: It depends...

Post by Guest » Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:59 am

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.

New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:00 am

Post by moonsea » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:00 am

oh,thanks to God!I find the orgnization finally
I have come to here for several days ,but I just skip the post
here,I have many words to say,but I can't find the way how
to post my opinion in here.Now I got it

Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: China

Post by yuniu » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:36 am

Yes! It is pet owner’s responsibility to take care of his pets to avoid any possible attack against human. I have a cute Boston Terror. She is so affectionate to every family member and a good door keeper as well. But she has one shortcoming --- She is always shouting at strangers who seems quite interested in her. Therefore every time while I take her outside, I should take a leash.

New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:35 am

of course,,

Post by wonki » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:55 am

Of course the owners should be responsible for their pets. It is like this.

Shouldn't parents of small kids be responsible for their children's behaviour??

I have no doubt about that no one is goint to say " No the parents shouldn't!"

If you have a pet and u love her so much. that means you are her mother,, you cannot avoid taking responsibilities about what your child (pet) is doing in public.
So~! if the owners don't want to take responsibility, i want to say this, DO NOT OWN A PET!!!

User avatar
Keeper of the Board
Keeper of the Board
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:05 am
Status: English Learner
Location: Vietnam

Post by Arale » Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:17 am

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?

Nothing lasts forever...

Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:44 pm
Status: Other
Location: European Union

Post by Hardi » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:14 am

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.

Post Reply