“The law has hardly been an improvement, and should be abolished.”
Corsin Zander
Yes
Poorly-behaved dogs are at best a Nuisance and at worst life-threatening. Anyone who owns a dog is responsible for the animal and his upbringing. It harms someone, it is for the holder to be punished. That’s right. In 2005, bite three Pitbull Terrier in oberglatt, a 6-year-old boy to death. The owner of the dogs was sitting for almost two years in prison.
The policy but wanted more. You wanted that it never happens again to such an incident and responded to the tragic incident with a tightening of laws. The owners of large or massive dogs should complete a course of ten lessons, and together with the animal the correct way to handle learn.
although This is understandable, but wrong. The stricter law has hardly been an improvement, and should be abolished. Since the introduction of the rate of duty in 2010, the population feels safer, but the statistics show no improvement in the Situation. A decrease in the number of bite incidents can not be ascertained. For the municipalities the course mandatory represents a costly additional expense. You need to control who attended the course, and the dog’s owner, where appropriate, send a reminder.
“without the law, the majority of dog take true holder of their responsibilities.”
is not this your duty, however, must notify the municipality of this Canton, and of the dog’s owner is fined. A study of 2016 shows: Every third paid prefer the buses of 150 francs, than to attend the course. You are to blame, that the bite numbers have not decreased? No, the mentioned study also shows that Of the course subject to owners whose dog bites, has visited the vast majority of the course.
This does not speak against the quality of the courses. In General, dogs are educated according to the rates better. At least then, if the dog owner is also convinced that the course brings to him and his dog. And there are many. You can visit the course today is voluntary and will visit him in the future on a voluntary basis. Thus, the course provider, the fear of not fewer customers, if the vocal voices of the people, Yes, and thus the duty would be to abolish arithmetic. And that shows that Even without the law, most of the dog take the true holder of their responsibilities, attend courses, learn with your dogs. Instead of investing money in the absence of control for the course of the truant officer, to make the municipalities the owners of course, if someone logs on to his dog. If the state wants to educate its citizens, then self-governance.
“The dog law is, and remains, an impression of immature Structures.”
Liliane Minor
no.
It is always appropriate skepticism, if one with a lot of fanfare, a law should be after ten years, thrown overboard. Because it means mostly that those in the law wrote, have goofed.
The dog law provides otherwise. It is, and remains, an impression of immature Entity with its breed ban and the rate of duty that applies only for large and massive dogs. So now, at least, a blunder should be corrected: The course is compulsory. It seems like the SVP, FDP and CVP. But this is the wrong way to go.
The opponents, among other things, the poor-rate discipline lead as the Argument for the abolition of the field – but they show, rather, that your assertion is wrong, the majority of dog owners are responsible enough to visit even without the legislature in the neck courses. No, you can’t rely on self-responsibility, when almost a third of dog owners met once then his duty, if in the case of omission, a fine threatens. We don’t do the driving test with the Argument that motorists would not hold still to the rules. Sure, on the basis of the bite numbers is not to prove the courses.
“There is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs of Fido and Bello.”
The opposite, however, is not. Or in other words: Depending on the selected period, the Numbers seem to support the one or the other of These, because they fluctuate from year to year. But the bite statistics alone is not a sufficient Argument. Much more important is that people feel according to surveys, more secure, since there is the dog courses. This is quite plausible, it is rather the large animals that make you afraid. And educated in the vast majority of is better known today than ten years ago.
Add to this, that Owners and holder, by Statute, are obliged to act the animal welfare. And here are the courses to do much about it. This does not mean that the majority of Friend do not want anyway the Best for your darling. Only it is missing sometimes, the specialist knowledge and understanding of the needs of Fido and Bello. This is evident since the introduction of the courses in increasing level of the small dogs, as experts say unanimously. Because you are not of course liable to believe a lot of owners mistakenly that Small would need a lot less education, care and discharge as the Large. If the dog law needs to be changed a bit, it is this: There is no need to abolish the course of duty, but an extension to all holders.
Created: 24.01.2019, 21:26 PM
