Reckless Dog Owners Bite

I'm so over the expression "irresponsible dog owner." This wornout term is used to describe folks who routinely let their dogs run at large, tether their dogs 24/7, abuse or neglect their dogs, and let unsupervised and unfamiliar children play with their dogs. Dogs are merely property to them, a disposable commodity that can be easily replaced, not cherished family members. Their dogs are also the ones most often seen in bite reports. If you take their dog away — punishing the dog — they just get another one.

Let's call these irresponsible owners what they really are: "reckless owners." It's easy to understand and memorable. More importantly, cops and policy makers get the concept of reckless: We don't let reckless drivers drive, do we?

Too many of our dangerous dog laws focus solely on the dogs and not on the owner (the worst of these being breed specific or breed discriminatory laws, which judge dogs based on their appearance). A dog deemed "dangerous" based on past aggression is confiscated and killed, while the dog owner is let off the hook. Even in the cases where the dog owner faces nominal fines, the circumstances that led up to the dog bite are rarely addressed. Canine behavior does not happen in a vacuum. If there is a problem with the dog, invariably there is a problem with the owner.

Reckless owners differ substantially from dog guardians — the responsible folks who love their dog, control their dog, and understand the importance of public safety.

There is evidence to back up the theory that reckless owners are involved in the majority of dog bites. According to the National Canine Research Council, 84 percent of dog-related fatalities in 2006 involved reckless owners. If we want to start reducing dog bites we need to target reckless owners in our laws. These folks are often recidivists, yet they are rarely prohibited from owning animals in the future.

Many communities, and some states, are finally starting to get it right. Tacoma, Wash., has a "problem pet owner" ordinance that forbids such people from owning pets. St. Paul, Minn., targets reckless owners. The entire state of Minnesota prevents people whose dogs have been deemed dangerous from owning dogs. Illinois prevents convicted felons from owning unsterilized or unmicrochipped dogs. The Land of Lincoln also has a law that mandates psychological counseling for companion-animal hoarders. Countless communities and quite a few states — including Texas — are targeting reckless owners by putting restrictions on dog chaining or tethering. Yes, Texas, not the most animal-friendly state in the union. Pretty darn amazing.

In contrast to the somewhat simplistic terminology for dog owners I embrace, cultural sociologist David Blouin classified the relationship between people and their dogs into three distinct categories: Humanists highly value their dogs and consider them close companions; Protectionists greatly value animals in general, not just as pets; and Dominionists see animals as separate and less important than people, and they use dogs for hunting and pest control, requiring them to live outdoors. I'd say reckless or irresponsible owners usually fall into that last category, and removing the dog does not change the dominionist's behavior or beliefs about animals.

We need to stop focusing on the dog and start focusing on the owner. Places like Denver need to stop irrationally targeting dogs based on how they look and start targeting problem behavior ... at both ends of the leash. By prohibiting human behavior that encourages dogs to run amuck, we'll hopefully all live in safe, humane communities someday.

Photo Credit: National Canine Research Council