In recent days, the video “Two-year-old girl torn by a dog” has been distributed rapidly on a web platform, generating worldwide attention and a new round of discussion on the issue of urban dogs. During this period, a white Labrador was surrounded, but no attack was carried out.
The topic, “Rabrado has not been taken back by his master”, led to a wave of retrogression in public opinion, with many netizens worried about the arrest of Labrador for eating melons, as well as those who pointed out that Labrador had tried to stop the Black Rowena dog attack on the girl child, calling it “the snowfall” in Labrador, but more people have noticed that the owner of Labrador had a dog loosed and should be severely punished.
In the view of the author, the focus of the assault should not be diverted by the “innocent” of the Labrador dog in the video. The dog does not bite, and there may be grounds for “freedom”, but the dog's master should be held legally liable for his untied behaviour.
In the impression of many, the Labradors are gentle, obedient and less aggressive. But is it true that a gentle character doesn't bite? On the Internet, it is not difficult to find a case of a Labrador dog. Thus, the gentleness of the Labrador dog does not mean that it doesn't bite, and we can't judge the dog's individual behavior by its type.
Such a pretense, based on experience, that a particular dog would not bite and would pose additional safety risks. In particular, for medium-sized and large dogs, there is a potential risk inherent in their larger size. Neglecting such dangers tends to make people less inclined and more vulnerable to tragedies. Once a tragedy has occurred, the harm done to oneself or others is irreversible.
We cannot demand dogs with human rules and ethical norms, but their owners, as citizens, must abide by ethical norms and more so by laws and regulations. A review of the regulations governing dog raising at all levels does not say that “dogs can leave a leash without biting”. According to articles 32 (1) and 41 of the Town Dogs Ordinance, a dog keeper shall be bound to the dog or keep him/her under the proper management of the dog. Violations are corrected by an order of the municipal administration and are punishable by a fine of between $50 and $200. In serious cases, the public security authorities force the dogs to be taken in.
Article 30, paragraph 2, of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Animal Disease Prevention provides that when a dog leaves the household, he shall wear a canine placard and take measures such as canine ropes in order to prevent it from only hurting people and spreading the disease. It can be seen that dogs are only tied outside not only to prevent dogs from hurting, but also to prevent dogs from defecating everywhere, resulting in the spread of the disease. Moreover, not all citizens can live in harmony with dogs, many do not like dogs and many are afraid of dogs. Citizens have the right to have dogs, but dog-bearers and dog-lovers should also respect the legitimate demands of others, comply legally with dog-keeping and reduce the inconvenience and impact of dog-keeping on others.
One important reason for the wide-ranging controversy surrounding the assault is the lack of clarity and regulation of existing dog-keeping regulations and the lack of a clear line between the rights and interests of the dog-rearing population and those who do not. At present, urban dogs are under-regulated in many areas, with less severe penalties for violations, mostly based on warnings, criticisms and fines. However, many bloody cases have shown us that behaviour such as leashing dogs and raising substandard dogs in cities is not just “uncivilized”, but “unsafe” and poses a great threat to citizens' right to life and health. With regard to the issue of urban dogs, it is important that the supervision of the relevant authorities be carried out in a regular manner, with greater scrutiny and penalties for violations, so as to eliminate the risks and not wait for the tragedy to take place. After all, punishment was not an end in itself, and it was the responsibility of the authorities to ensure the safety of people ' s lives and property.