Dangerous dogs issue
The vicious dog regulations commonly try to define the features of hazardous dogs, lay down the process of announcing a certain dog to be perilous, and specify what should be done with a vicious dog and its possessor. These commandments vary extensively in how they regulate all of those effects. They might offer that a vicious dog can be murdered without a delay, can be detained and killed after the announcement to the owner and an occasion to be heard, or can have forced circumstances concerning its incarceration and civic property attendance (Dangerous Dogs, 2014). Furthermore, the laws might require the owner to spend a period of time in jail, pay a fine, and face a ban against keeping another dog for a certain period of time.
Currently, there have been many law cases that would categorize complete breeds of dog as hazardous, because of an observation that several breeds such as the Pitbull and the Rottweiler can be overseen. This law is normally called breed-specific. It is imperious for every community to have a vicious dog law along with other animal regulation laws. In order to understand the necessity to enact a policy, the concept of a hypothetically dangerous and vicious dog should be defined. Firstly, any dog that is involved in any actions that entail a self-protective action by any individual to avert physical injury when the individual and the dog are not on the possessions of the owner or caretaker of the animal (Bleasdale-Hill & Dickinson, 2016). Secondly, any dog that bites an individual producing a temporary or transitory bodily pain or injury without need for numerous junctions or remedial or cosmetic surgical treatment should also be considered dangerous. Thirdly, any dog which, has slayed, severely nibbled, imposed damage, or otherwise instigated injury attacking a chaperon dog for the sightless, a helping dog for the incapacitated, or a hearing dog for the deafened while not being on the possessions of the holder or keeper of the dog should be seen as vicious (Stevenson, 2011). The most prevalent case is when any dog which has slaughtered, seriously gnawed, imposed damage, or otherwise triggered injury while fighting a domestic animal and not being on the possessions of the possessor or caretaker of the dog.
The work identifies that unsuitable violence by dogs against individuals and other animals is a grave menace to public security, and that this topic must be discussed if we are to form caring societies where people and dogs live together and improve each other’s lives. The breed banning should be banned as a policy for addressing events of violence and diminishing the number of dog bites (Tudor, 2013). Instead, the society is certain of the fact that the best way to address public security anxieties is for humanitarian establishments, other pet shareholder organizations, towns, and the local government to produce an effort together on complex strategies that classify and examine vicious dogs of all kinds.
The visit
Effective models for coping with dog violence concentrate on lawmaking, tutoring, and the formation of corrective amenities for vicious dogs. The author believes that the most actual method of dealing with the question of improper dog hostility in Lincolnwood society is to elaborate a tactic founded on these models.
Dangerous and vicious dogs
Dogs can offer company, respect, and attachment. They can also go vicious and attack our kids or unprotected animals. In this work I offer a policy intended to recognize and get rid of the few malicious offenders while defending our liberty to keep a dog around. The present legislature maintaining the regulation of vicious dogs is disreputably fraught with complications, especially relating to the definitions specified within the relevant requirements. This work scrutinizes two characteristics of the statutory outline – the regulation of certain breeds of dogs and the improvement of guidelines concerning the regulation of dogs from public to private domains. These features offer a chance for two major defense points in support of dog owners and their pets to be examined – the safety of the people and the necessity to develop the sense of responsibility in dog owners.
Key priorities and recommendations
When it comes to the dangerous and vicious dogs of Lincolnwood, the key priority is the law. The author presents several recommendations:
- The expansion and application of coordinated animal control by the regulations which endorse sterilization and castration, make dog documentation obligatory, confine the keeping of courtyard dogs and oblige the dog owner to be responsible for their pet;
- The making of rougher regulations to address the animal negligence that subsidizes to dog violence;
- The elaboration of operative authorizing structures that control breeding services, pet instructors, and others in this segment who encourage the dogs’ behavior;
- The recordkeeping of belligerent dogs through the evidence from veterinarians, law enforcement agency, postmen, animal control generals, and humanitarian establishments;
- The formation of a unified, available catalog that truthfully records dog bite events;
- The preferment of a compulsory reintervention by qualified specialists for dogs described as vicious.
Dangerous dogs organizational conference
When we consider the issue of vicious dogs we should understand that not every individual possesses information on how to behave around a dangerous dog and, in fact, how to spot a vicious dog at all. This is why we should increase literacy on the issue among children and their parents. Consequently, this project would involve nurses in terms of presenting the information (vivid works on a big screen, simple and comprehendable explanations, etc.) and professional veterinarians. These health experts would dwell on the importance of this issue for the community and explain how to evade the danger in risky situations, how to and where to walk the dog properly, and hand out brochures with a graphic representation of the content of the conference.
Story telling
A Yorkshire terrier was brutally slaughtered by a Pitbull in Lincolnwood. This has encouraged the community to assess its decree regulating dogs that exist in in the community. The Court ordered to put the dog down and the owner voluntarily euthanized his Pitbull (McBride, 2013). The murder was observed by a group of children who had been outdoor with the terrier, consistent with the police statement. One more dog was attacked a bit later by another Pitbull, police department alleged, but that dog lived. Those events have led to the evaluation of the community’s procedure of coping with the dogs’ outbreaks. Most remarkably, the happenings have raised up queries about whether it should be the district or the community that investigates the cases concerning Pitbulls and other canines believed to be malicious under Lincolnwood laws. One modification in compliance with the anticipated new regulation would necessitate any events where a dog nibbles or murders another animal or human being to be revised by the community’s officer rather than by a judge. The reviews would let the hearing officer decide if it is required to euthanize the dog as all the responsibility should lie on their shoulders, not the Cook county Judge’s. The newfangled decree wouldn’t essentially strengthen the way Lincolnwood controls Pitbulls, but it would, to some extent, give more precision to the description of what is well-defined as a dangerous dog, which would assist in simplifying the implementation process if one more dog attack happens.
Policymaker response
The policymaker was listening attentively and was involved in the process. I presented my policy project in a friendly atmosphere and was surprised by the amount of attention that I got from the listeners. She behaved professionally and was interested in implementing the policy presented during the meeting. The policy-maker agreed on most of the points and positively responded to the work. The overall experience can be considered pretty decent as the policy-maker approved that the policy should be ratified as soon as possible. It was a warm welcome and I enjoyed the time that I spent presenting the policy project.
Evaluation of the meeting
The meeting proved to be a positive experience as the policy-maker agreed that the policy on dangerous and vicious dogs should be enacted. She also believes that more people should learn about this new policy (including the nursing professionals and Lincolnwood community). According to the policy-maker’s point of view this decree is essential to the village’s community. She as well recommended several organizations to become partners with.
Reflections on the Process
During the elaboration of the policy design and research on the subject, I have learned more about the issue of dangerous and vicious dogs. This issue presents an extensive topic to the nursing profession. The experience of presenting a policy design to the policy-maker helped me to gain self-esteem and perseverance, I have successfully communicated on a professional level and managed to convey the ideas to the policy-maker. The development of the personal skills mentioned above should be considered the essential objective in nursing training for the reason that nurses should possess a large share of persistence and persuasiveness to succeed in everything they do. I consider the process of presenting the policy to the policy-maker a complex task that should be taken very seriously.
More keys to success
When dealing with such an issue, we should attract publicity. This type of content effortlessly goes viral and this may be of great assistance to the people who work on the policies. For Lincolnwood, the opinion of the community is essential. Moreover, it is important to reach out to the publicity in a proper way in order to get attention. Concerning the policy-maker’s advice, would be reasonable to sign a partnership with a decent sponsor that would support the campaign. It should also be noted that persistence is not always a helpful personal trait when meeting a policy-maker as the attending party should carefully choose the time of the visit, evaluate the time that is spent on the presentation prior to the event, and use a professional but easy-to-understand vocabulary.
Follow up
First and foremost, it is obligatory to thank the policy-maker for the attention. One should be ready for their policy to be turned down so it would be reasonable to prepare an additional point of interest for the policy-maker. The presenter should also be ready to be criticized for their work. In this case it is essential to keep calm and collected. Losing your composure during this type of event might be upsetting, but this should not be the reason for the nurse to give up. The key point is to stay positive and react to the critic adequately, outlining the main criteria that would help develop the idea further.
Future Opportunities
The policymaker agreed to cooperate so this opens new horizons to this campaign. An important notice is that nurses can showcase their leadership skills and show the motivation that is necessary to achieve the goal.
Conclusions
The work dwelled on the issue of dangerous and vicious dogs in Lincolnwood. Research showed that a policy could be implemented. Consequently, a policy design was elaborated and presented. The work used a personal approach and described a real life example that provoked the community to review their opinion concerning the dangerous and vicious dogs.
References
Bleasdale-Hill, L., & Dickinson, J. (2016). Dangerous Dogs: Different Dog, Same Lamppost? The Journal of Criminal Law, 80(1), 64-76. doi:10.1177/0022018315623684
Dangerous Dogs: Culprits or Victims? (2014). Veterinary Record, 175(22), 554- 554. doi:10.1136/vr.g7258
McBride, E. A. (2013). Aggression Between Dogs: What Can the Vet do to Help Solve the Problem? Veterinary Record, 172(5), 125-126. doi:10.1136/vr.f654
Stevenson, M. (2011). Handling and Restraining Aggressive Dogs. Veterinary Record, 168(11), 309-309. doi:10.1136/vr.d1676
Tudor, N. (2013). Law, Ethics, and Professional Practice — Part 1: Euthanasia of Healthy, but Aggressive, Dogs. Veterinary Nursing Journal, 28(2), 58-59. doi:10.1111/vnj.12007
