Tougher dog laws are not working-- Doglinks editorial
Just from the mere title, you don't have to read the article. But if you do it's here.
My thoughts on this whole "Death By Dog" Matter. The media do play a role in this... I mean, they are putting fear into people where there shouldn't be. Or may be there should be now (with dogs being unsocialized).
The woman who died from the dog attack didn't REALLY die of the dog attack. Apparently, the dog bite in a artery, resulting in blood rushing out. If the dog would have bitten anywhere else, things would have been different. I wasn't there, so I'll write apparently, from what I saw in the very brief interview with family members.
You could almost say that she died from negligence. If anybody that rushed to her aid would have known first aid, they would have known to untie their tie or some other cloth, and tie it around her leg to prevent the gush of blood. She was an volunteer ambulance driver, perhaps she said something about it, perhaps she was unconscious, but....
The dog was her nephew's dog.
Her nephew had a dog that was vicious because he wanted to protect his house. Not because he was a bad dog owner. (Of course, the vicious dog should have stayed in his yard... no doubt about that!)
Why?
Because in that neighbourhood, there are burglaries.
It's not the dog laws that need to be changed, but the laws that put people in fear of their valuables. And why do most people go to jail? Drug related issues. So why don't we listen to the Select Committee's review and recommendations on Drug Laws and acknowledge that the drug laws are creating an environment in which people feel the need to have a vicious dog to protect their house.
This woman didn't die solely because of a dog bite. She died of ignorance from people who didn't know First Aid (I'm assuming everyone just gawked!), and bad social laws that necessitates people to feel the need to 'bare arms'.
New Zealanders don't bare arms with guns, they do it with dogs!
If you don't think this is true, please comments... express your views...
Getting tough on the dog problem (24/04/07)
We could be at the point where our dog laws need to take one further step, so that there's absolutely no doubt whose responsibility a dangerous dog is.
.... The futility of attempting to curb dog attacks through legislation was shown by the microchipping debate, which the Government was forced to water down in the face of vigorous opposition particularly from farmers, ending up with an essentially vain piece of legislation. Among the various lessons of that exercise was that microchips are only useful if they are implanted in a dog that later causes problem – and that dog is then caught in the act. MORE>>
Dog-owners must get the message (I hate this title... I mean, more media gigs.. HOW many pet owners ve a dog like that describe below !! hello ?!?!) Taranaki Time
A nip on the hand or leg ratchets up the fear factor by another hundred. Two enraged fighting dogs, all muscles and teeth and intent on killing, can be terrifying beyond measure. They can rip flesh to the bone faster than the human eye can see it happening, and cause agonising and hideously disfiguring - and sometime lethal - wounds. YA, Guns too!
In this little country, with the total population of barely a mid-sized city elsewhere in the world, four people have been killed by dogs in the last decade, how many died from gun shot wounds, or car accidents... put things in perspective, will ya?
scores of people have been hospitalised - with lifelong trauma and scars - and hundreds more dog-bite victims treated in clinics.
My thoughts on this whole "Death By Dog" Matter. The media do play a role in this... I mean, they are putting fear into people where there shouldn't be. Or may be there should be now (with dogs being unsocialized).
The woman who died from the dog attack didn't REALLY die of the dog attack. Apparently, the dog bite in a artery, resulting in blood rushing out. If the dog would have bitten anywhere else, things would have been different. I wasn't there, so I'll write apparently, from what I saw in the very brief interview with family members.
You could almost say that she died from negligence. If anybody that rushed to her aid would have known first aid, they would have known to untie their tie or some other cloth, and tie it around her leg to prevent the gush of blood. She was an volunteer ambulance driver, perhaps she said something about it, perhaps she was unconscious, but....
The dog was her nephew's dog.
Her nephew had a dog that was vicious because he wanted to protect his house. Not because he was a bad dog owner. (Of course, the vicious dog should have stayed in his yard... no doubt about that!)
Why?
Because in that neighbourhood, there are burglaries.
It's not the dog laws that need to be changed, but the laws that put people in fear of their valuables. And why do most people go to jail? Drug related issues. So why don't we listen to the Select Committee's review and recommendations on Drug Laws and acknowledge that the drug laws are creating an environment in which people feel the need to have a vicious dog to protect their house.
This woman didn't die solely because of a dog bite. She died of ignorance from people who didn't know First Aid (I'm assuming everyone just gawked!), and bad social laws that necessitates people to feel the need to 'bare arms'.
New Zealanders don't bare arms with guns, they do it with dogs!
If you don't think this is true, please comments... express your views...
Getting tough on the dog problem (24/04/07)
We could be at the point where our dog laws need to take one further step, so that there's absolutely no doubt whose responsibility a dangerous dog is. Anyone who owns a dog, must register it. To back this up, any unregistered dogs should be put down on sight, whether or not they are docile, dangerous, on a leash, or running in a field of sheep.
That sounds pretty harsh, particularly for, say, an unregistered chihuahua, but it sheets home the message that all dogs must fit in to our society. MORE>>
Controls with teeth From The Press-- surprisingly quite a good editorial!.... The futility of attempting to curb dog attacks through legislation was shown by the microchipping debate, which the Government was forced to water down in the face of vigorous opposition particularly from farmers, ending up with an essentially vain piece of legislation. Among the various lessons of that exercise was that microchips are only useful if they are implanted in a dog that later causes problem – and that dog is then caught in the act. MORE>>
Dog-owners must get the message (I hate this title... I mean, more media gigs.. HOW many pet owners ve a dog like that describe below !! hello ?!?!) Taranaki Time
A nip on the hand or leg ratchets up the fear factor by another hundred. Two enraged fighting dogs, all muscles and teeth and intent on killing, can be terrifying beyond measure. They can rip flesh to the bone faster than the human eye can see it happening, and cause agonising and hideously disfiguring - and sometime lethal - wounds. YA, Guns too!
In this little country, with the total population of barely a mid-sized city elsewhere in the world, four people have been killed by dogs in the last decade, how many died from gun shot wounds, or car accidents... put things in perspective, will ya?
scores of people have been hospitalised - with lifelong trauma and scars - and hundreds more dog-bite victims treated in clinics.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home