The dogcraver is aware of the fact that the dog can cause severe injury or death. However, he sees the dog as the source of power, since he uses that energy to stay alive and to constantly run away form his fear from within. The dog is useful to him as the source of power and as the source of energy. He uses that power to dominate the outside world and also uses the energy of the dog to sustain the inner dynamic aka to stay alive.
Although he is aware of the potential danger of his dog, he is proud of it, it makes him feel good cause it makes him feel safe. He is the proud master of the situation, where ever he shows up. This relationship with the threat leads to the changes in the threat perception. The dogcraver is aware of the threat but he is also aware of his ability to control it and that feeling of control is actually the thing that makes him feel so good. Or the notion of ability to control it. To put it simply, since he sees everything as objects that either serve him or not, he gorges on the RELATIONSHIP with the object but not with the object itself. His interaction with the world is not personal cause he is locked inside of that protective shell so the only way how he can communicate is trough mediums, in this case the dogs.
Since he is the only one whom can interpret the relationship his interpretation is the only valid one. This means that if he doesn't see the dog as a threat, that dog is not a threat cause he believes in the image of the dog that he created and projected on to the dog. And that image always includes the picture of the dog that knows that HE is the master. In his perception the image of the dog is the only image that exists but as soon as dog denies that image,aka it doesn't behave according to the projected image of the dogcraver, the dogcraver immediately abandons the dog, he cancels the relationship with the dog cause now the dog is a threat to him and assumes the defensive position from the general perspective, which is his understanding of how the society sees dogs. And since society sees dogs as positive, his dog, the dog becomes a dog. This transformation from the dog to a dog, gives the dogcraver more space to manoeuvre since his defence is not connected with the dog, his dog, yet it is an abstract, a dog, or the general perception of the dog.
So if his dog, kills your pet cat and you confront him with the fact that he is responsible for the dog's behaviour and that the cat is dead cause he wasn't responsible, he will automatically assume the defensive position which states that dogs do that, dogs kill cats and that is natural. So your complaint is irrelevant since it counters the very laws of the nature. Meaning that you are the one whom doesn't see things right cause you oppose the way how nature functions. If he is bolder he will than accuse you for letting your cat out and that it is your irresponsibility that lead to cat's death. Cause you know that dogs kill cats, so by letting the cat out, you placed your pet in danger of being torn to bits by dogs. At the end, it is irrelevant if his dog got the cat, if it didn't some other dog would. So it is your fault for not taking care of your cat and you are the one to be blamed for its death.
The truth is, however much simpler, the truth is that the dogcraver doesn't give a fuck for cats, he doesn't give a fuck for other smaller animals, for other human beings, for your yard or for you. Everyone knows what the dog is and they are obligated to respect that and keep away form the dog. If the dog gets one of those, well it is nature and it is normal, so complaining on that level is insane cause who would be so stupid to argue with the laws of nature.
But if something happens to the dogcraver dog, it is the violation not only the laws of the country, it is the violation of the laws of the universe. Cause dogs are apex predators, meaning that they are on top of things and since there are no natural force, no natural predator that controls them, the dog's demise is an act of abnormal,deviant and unnatural event. In other words it is an anomaly or if you want to put it legally it is a CRIME.
Dog can do what ever it wants, meaning that the dogcraver can do what ever it wants but without any consequences for that. Cause why there would be any consequences? The dog is the apex predator, meaning that rarely there is an animal that can endanger him, especially in the urban setting, so it cannot be killed in the “natural” aka normal way. Itself can kill what ever it wants to cause it is the apex predator, it is its right to kill cause of it. The dogcraver loves animals and respects the nature, meaning that if he prohibits his dog to behave in a natural way, he is against the nature and natural laws, he violates the natural setting. But since he is all for the nature, he can't and won't do that, cause it is wrong. If hist dog kills another animal, well it is the natural aka normal thing to happen so it shouldn't be seen as a problem.
This connection natural is normal and normal is natural is another insane mental construct of the dogcraver. He firmly believes in nature cause in nature his dog is on the top, which places him on the top and it is safe on the top. So replace the nature with normality and you will get that it is normal for him to be on the top. He is entitled to that place.