Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behaviour?

Monthly topics for discussion

Moderators: Vega, Krisi, TalkingPoint

Post Reply
User avatar
TalkingPoint
EC Teacher
EC Teacher
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:21 pm
Status: English Teacher
Location: England

Should pet owners be responsible for their pets' behaviour?

Post by TalkingPoint » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:33 am

Pets sometimes attack people and injure or kill them. Should pet owners be held responsible? Should dangerous pets be kept on leads or muzzled in public? Should dangerous pets be put down?

English Checker
pet: a domestic or tamed animal that people have (usually in their house) for companionship or pleasure
to hold (somebody) responsible for: to consider that somebody is the primary cause of
behaviour (AmE behavior): the way in which a person or animal acts or responds to something
lead: (mainly BrE) a strap or cord for restraining and guiding a dog or other animal
to muzzle: to fit a guard over an animal's mouth to stop it biting
to put down: to kill an animal because it is sick, injured, old or dangerous
Last edited by TalkingPoint on Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

jwr1919

Pet is people's good friend

Post by jwr1919 » Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:28 pm

I have a lovely dog when i was a kid,long tail with puff hair,deeply i loved it.It never attact people unless he felt to be in danger. However,It was killed by a young boy because of my dog happened to bite him

rodgers

Post by rodgers » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:21 am

I agree with yours.pet are always pet.Though it may be educated by people,it still just an animal.Maybe you love dog or cat,but you should keep it not to attact other people.
Last edited by rodgers on Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Charlie

Pets and responsibility

Post by Charlie » Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:47 am

:o Pets are used in all parts of the world to help others. And the majority of the pets in the world are well trained to serve mankind in one way or another.

The biggest problem with some pets, are not the animals themselves, but the owners. Owners ho do not take responsibility to train their pets as well as keeping their pets under control. The responsibility lies with the owner when a pet injures another living thing; not the pet. :P

titi

animals and animosity

Post by titi » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:22 am

Keeping animals as pets is not a common phenomenon with us Africans consequently it would be quite for us to have these pets muzzled or with leads,because we fear it might harm somebody and put us into unnecessary problems.
It is important however that owner of pets train them adequately if they don,t feel like having them muzzled or with leads.

Prometheus

It depends...

Post by Prometheus » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:34 am

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.

moi

animals & animosity

Post by moi » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:37 am



:lol: I apppreciate the humour of Prometheus, and I'm agree with him.

:P I have got a dog (a retriever), It's 8 years.
Each days evening, we walk together an half hour.
When we were in the street, I put the lead arround his neck, and it take the other end of the lead between its jaws.
Always, it stay near me.I have a great trust in it.

I think that depends of the dog and of course of the owner.
:o But in any cases the owner must be aware responsable.[/url]

juliapet

dogs

Post by juliapet » Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:44 am

:idea: I think that people must not take fighting dogs as pets. Or these owners must be very responsible for special training of their dogs and watch them very carefully. Owners who don't look after their dangerous dogs good enough must be punished (a jail is crying about them...).
I have a 8-years-old dog. Great Dane. This is a very friendly, very calm dog, good trained in a dog school, and I trust her very much. But I never allow her to run without lead if anybody is around me. People can be just scaried.
I do not understand why some people give a lot of freedom to Bullterrier, Bullmustiff, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or Akita dog only because they (owners) think that their dogs are kind and friendly (They say:"He is 5 years old, and we never had any accident with him"). Stupid people! Don't they know that they shouldn't trust these dogs? Nobody knows what they will decide next minute! Before buying a dog, everybody should ask, "Am I the person for this dog?"
Every dog can become dangerous in bad hands. Owners of big dogs should give particular attention to their pets.

I am against killing of old dogs. May be only if they(dogs) are paralized, I can understand the owners.

hhabrey

animals

Post by hhabrey » Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:05 am

hi there. firt of all i want to thank the members and the stuff of the English club for there services to us, i want to say that may english is improving.
about the topic having animals as pets is a good idea in one way and bad in the other. We can use animals in hunting and security as dogs can do or having fun with them or helping the blind peaple to week the street. on the other hand they can cast alot of diseases for the oner and harm others.
in conclusion animals can be good in somethings and bad in others but in my opinon i thinks that they are useful to us
peace yow

HHabrey :D

amartinla

pets behavior...

Post by amartinla » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:05 am

Hi all,

I don't have a pet, but I think it's all on the owners education.
Sometimes, pets can be dangerous, but humans are even more dangerous.
Governements should improve actions to educate owners in order to prevent inappropiate behavior.

Best regards,

AM

Shanghai Phillip

Animals

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.

erikawe

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.

Thanks
Erika

muafiqur_roi

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.

Thanks,
Roi

Neniuxss

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.
Hello!
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.

costadina

pets

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.

A.Junior

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.

blacky

animals

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.

Graham

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

eucheria

ANIMALS & ANIMOSITY

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: .

Thanks
eucheria

silvia

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

solomon

Animals

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?/

eclub777

animals

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

I THINK THEY ARE ANIMALS!!! AND DIFFERENT OF US. THEREFOR WE HAVE TO DO THEM BASED OF THESE DIFFERENCIES!! THEY’LL CAN’T BE NEVER ONE OF US. BECURFULL . :roll:

Mandy2
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.

Guest

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.

moonsea
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

yuniu
Member
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.

wonki
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
Arale
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?

_Arale_
Nothing lasts forever...

Hardi
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.

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Post by Shazzam » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:55 am

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
Silver Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:02 am

A penny from me

Post by sky888walker » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:14 am

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.

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Re: A penny from me

Post by Shazzam » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:36 pm

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!!

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Re: It depends...

Post by Shazzam » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:39 pm

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: ;)

Guest

Re: It depends...

Post by Guest » Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:26 pm

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:

sky888walker
Silver Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:02 am

simplyblessed ???

Post by sky888walker » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:23 am

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

Can i laugh now... ??

ha ha ha

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Should you be responsible for your pets.

Post by Shazzam » Fri May 06, 2005 9:31 am

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.

Coolfish
Silver Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:09 am

Post by Coolfish » Wed May 11, 2005 5:58 am

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
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:57 am

Post by Yan999 » Thu May 12, 2005 11:04 am

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.

User avatar
Shazzam
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am
Location: Australia

Post by Shazzam » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:36 pm

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

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Re: Should you be responsible for your pets.

Post by MissLT » Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:34 pm

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.

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Post by MissLT » Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:07 am


Vale
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:16 pm
Status: English Learner

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

Post by Vale » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:50 pm

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?

User avatar
Krisi
Keeper of the Board
Keeper of the Board
Posts: 4136
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:48 am
Status: English Learner

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

Post by Krisi » Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:31 am

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.

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

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

Post by MissLT » Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:05 am

They say there is no irresponsible pet, only irresponsible owner.

User avatar
emresenoglu
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:34 pm
Status: English Learner

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

Post by emresenoglu » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:48 am

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.

User avatar
sweethuman
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 7:18 am
Status: Other
Contact:

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

Post by sweethuman » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:16 am

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.

Post Reply