neighbours dog

Paul91

my 2 cents - there are two issues,

dog chasing cat - natural and there is not much you can do to stop it, as other posters have said, cats tend to tease dogs, i know this from first hand, and if a dog gets out and loose with a cat in sight there is nothing much that will stop/slow down the dog, fences and hedges would be in bits, and while i wouldn't want a cat hurt, if they are out in the open wandering round and a dog appears the chase is on.

the real issue is a dog roaming loose, being left to roam by it's owners, this is wrong, and if they are not mature enough to realise this then the dog warden needs to be called - but like someone else mentioned, i'd leave it a few weeks to let the situation calm down, and maybe get a friend to call for you

Paul91

susanroth wrote: »

the neighbours are right about animals needing to roam, but not if they are a risk to others and also I don't know what kind of area your in, but it sounds like their dog would be more suited to the country where neighbours aren't so near..

just my opinion, but dogs aren't meant to roam, and if they do it's from boredom and lack of care and exercise

as for this dog being in the country, if it was left to roam like that - i should think it would end up being shot by a farmer - which they can legally do if they feel the dog is worrying their livestock

cianer

Paul91 wrote: »

just my opinion, but dogs aren't meant to roam, and if they do it's from boredom and lack of care and exercise

I couldnt disagree with you more - dogs have as strong an instinct to roam and explore as cats do but are curtailed by the law. That's why all dogs should be taken out to get their exercise despite the size of their gardens, they need new scents and sights.

I agree with keeping a dog under control as they do have a far larger potiental to create danger than a roaming cat but this doesn't mean cats should have a right to roam either. If the owners choose to let their cat roam they should put up with the consequences without whinging as their neighbours have to put up with the cat fouling in their gardens, having their wildlife killed, teasing their dogs etc.

The warden should definatly be called about the dog in question here though, if OP has tried to approach the owners without a good result then it's time for more serious action.

Honey-ec

Paul91 wrote: »

i should think it would end up being shot by a farmer - which they can legally do if they feel the dog is worrying their livestock

Oy, here we go again. Farmers are not entitled to shoot a dog they "believe" is worrying their livestock. Legally, the dog needs to be caught in the act, as it were, but unfortunately a lot of farmers in this country (not all, before anyone jumps down my throat) tend to shoot first and ask questions later and it's almost impossible to prove what really happened after the fact.

Ambersky

Control of Dogs Act, 1986

23 1986 32
[GA] Defence in action for damages for shooting dog.

23.—(1) It shall be a defence to any action for damages against a person for the shooting of a dog, or to any charge arising out of the shooting of a dog, if the defendant proves that—
[GA]

( a ) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or
[GA]

( b ) (i) the dog was a stray dog which was in the vicinity of a place where livestock had been injured or killed, and
[GA]

(ii) the defendant reasonably believed that the dog had been involved in the injury or killing, and
[GA]

(iii) there were no practicable means of seizing the dog or ascertaining to whom it belonged; and
[GA]

( c ) he was the person in charge of the livestock; and
[GA]

( d ) he notified within forty-eight hours the member in charge at the nearest Garda Station to the place where the dog was shot of the incident.
[GA]

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) (a) and subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iii) of this section shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that those provisions had been satisfied and he had reasonable grounds for that belief.

http://www.pets.ie/blog/104_increase-in-dogs-attacking-sheep.html
Dogs, even little pet dogs, that are dotes in the family home can take part in the savage killing of sheep and lambs when allowed out unsupervised within running distance of farms. You dont know what your dog is doing when you let it out to run.

Look the bottom line is you must as a dog owner be responsible for your animal at all times.
Being responsible as I have stated in my previous posts means the dog must be under your effectual control at all times.
Allowing dogs to roam free even for short periods of the day gives dog ownership and dogs a bad reputation.

People who have to scrape other peoples dogs s**t from their own or their childrens shoes grow to really resent the local dogs running around. Its even worse when you have s**t on your shoes and you dont realise it untill you have walked it all over the house. Dog s**t is a serious issue.

it has been estimated that a single gram of dog waste can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria, which are known to cause cramps, diarrhea, intestinal illness, and serious kidney disorders in humans.

http://www.doodycalls.com/resources_toxic_dog_waste.asp


Instead of making excuses for a dog when it does something that invades the body space, health or safety of another human being do something practical to make sure it dosent happen again.
Again I want to say I really do love dogs and cats but I want to see people taking pet ownership and the responsibilities that come with it more seriously.

Paul91

Honey-ec wrote: »

Oy, here we go again. Farmers are not entitled to shoot a dog they "believe" is worrying their livestock. Legally, the dog needs to be caught in the act, as it were, but unfortunately a lot of farmers in this country (not all, before anyone jumps down my throat) tend to shoot first and ask questions later and it's almost impossible to prove what really happened after the fact.

i'll assume you read the control of dogs act that Ambersky kindly posted, if a famer feels a dog is worrying their livestock they can shoot it -legally

( a ) the dog was shot when it was worrying, or was about to worry, livestock and that there were no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

- how you can prove that a dog was about to worry livestock is another matter - but the farmer will argue that the dog was on his land and if there is livestock in the vicinity that may be enough

spiderdog

cianer wrote: »

I couldnt disagree with you more - dogs have as strong an instinct to roam and explore as cats do but are curtailed by the law. That's why all dogs should be taken out to get their exercise despite the size of their gardens, they need new scents and sights.



yes, dogs should be taken out to get exercise etc... opening your door and letting your dog out to roam alone is not acceptable and pure lazyiness.
loose dogs can cause accidents which the owner can be held accountable for.
i really feel for the op...this is not a nice situation to be in.

carleigh

fyi......the dog warden can give the name of the person who made the complaint about the dog should the dog owner ask them too.

Ambersky

Dog wardens are not out to get rid of dogs. They are there to make sure dogs are cared for properly and in accordiance with the law.

In my case the dog warden had a chat with me, advised me to keep a written record of times and dates my neighbours dogs were barking, running around off lead, damaging communal property, damaging my garden etc.
I would advise the OP as a matter of urgency to take some photos of her back as part of her record.

The dog warden visited my neighbour and did not say who was making a complaint. My neighbour did guess but look everyone in my area has had a run in with them at some time or other. With some people its stand up for yourself and perhaps get some respect or get walked on and definitely get no respect.
The warden asked my neighbours if they had a licence and told them what the law said about keeping a dog.
Since then the dogs are kept outside in the back garden and they are walked regularly. The dog warden did not want to take the dogs away, he wanted them to obey the laws that are there to keep us all living more peacefully together.

The OP has said she is afraid of dogs.
She is afraid of her neignbours big dog.
A big dog ran towards her for whatever reason, off lead and jumped at her.
She in an effort to protect herself turned her back to the dog.
The dog scratched her back leaving a mark from her shoulder to her hip.
The dog snapped at her while all this was happening
She screamed while this was happening in fear.
Her body is marked by this dog.

So what has to happen for dog lovers to stop blaming or trying to change the victim in this situation?
Her neighbours obviously know their dog is scaring the OP running around off lead. They saw what happened and have not taken it seriously. What would have to happen for them to take it seriously. I draw the line way before being marked by my neighbours irresponsibility. My neighbours dogs never snapped at me or clawed my back. If they did I would make sure that the choice was keep the dogs in, on the lead or have them shot.

Why are there so many calls for her to moderate her reaction rather than outrage at dog owners behaving so irresponsibly.
And why is she, who has already physically marked by a dog, being scared by being warned of the bad things that could happen if she reports them.

ISDW

Ambersky wrote: »

So what has to happen for dog lovers to stop blaming or trying to change the victim in this situation?
Her neighbours obviously know their dog is scaring the OP running around off lead. They saw what happened and have not taken it seriously. What would have to happen for them to take it seriously. I draw the line way before being marked by my neighbours irresponsibility. My neighbours dogs never snapped at me or clawed my back. If they did I would make sure that the choice was keep the dogs in, on the lead or have them shot.

Why are there so many calls for her to moderate her reaction rather than outrage at dog owners behaving so irresponsibly.
And why is she, who has already physically marked by a dog, being scared by being warned of the bad things that could happen if she reports them.

I think that you must be reading a different thread to me, the OP has stated that she has recently bought the house and doesn't want to make enemies in her new home. So, some people have advised her to contact the dog warden, others to talk to the dog owner. But with her own fears, the advice then was to maybe wait a while to report them so that the neighbours didn't know it was her.

Nowhere on this thread have I seen anybody be anything but sympathetic and understanding, and agree that the dog owners are in the wrong.

Not all dog owners are irresponsible, most of us understand that there are a lot of people who are afraid of dogs. We also understand that our dogs are our responsiblity and we shouldn't allow them to be a nuisance to anybody, whether they are afraid of them or not.

Ambersky

Of course I agree with you ISDW the majority of responses have been supportive.
I guess I was responding to Honey-ec s posts without actually saying so and I made it sound too general as though all dog owners were defending the behaviour. Honey-ec posts seemed like a defense of dogs roaming or being let off lead.

It sounds to me like the dog jumped up on her, she turned her back and got a bit of a scrape. Not pleasant, particularly if you're afraid of dogs, but she wasn't exactly savaged by the dog and the Gardai would laugh at you if you made a complaint on that basis.

The current law states only that dogs must be kept "under proper control". It does not define what "proper control" is, so it can (and has been) argued that an off-lead dog who is accompanied by its owner is being kept under proper control.

Obviously the dog in this particular case wasn't under proper control by any definition, but I'm just a bit sick of people posting complete misinformation about the Control of Dogs Act on this forum.

Oy, here we go again. Farmers are not entitled to shoot a dog they "believe" is worrying their livestock. Legally, the dog needs to be caught in the act, as it were, but unfortunately a lot of farmers in this country (not all, before anyone jumps down my throat) tend to shoot first and ask questions later and it's almost impossible to prove what really happened after the fact.

I know the OP has said she dosent want to cause a fuss and ruin relationships with her neighbours.
I guess I got carried away wanting her to do something to defend herself and not to be afraid.
Again without quoting anyone I saw warnings of what could happen if she told the warden, as being frightening even though I acknowledge they may be correct and well intentioned. In my own situation it was by having the courage to talk to the warden that I finally got some respect and I wish the same for the OP. It may be a different situation.

shona2

hi,i moved to a new area,all was fine untill i looked after my friends dog for 2weeks,
my next door neighber phoned the dog warden and said it was barking when it was not,i think if you have bad neighbers thay will find something to complane about no matter what it is..

cyning

shona2 wrote: »

hi,i moved to a new area,all was fine untill i looked after my friends dog for 2weeks,
my next door neighber phoned the dog warden and said it was barking when it was not,i think if you have bad neighbers thay will find something to complane about no matter what it is..

might be picking up on this wrong but why should I put up with a dog jumping on me and scratching me? I said it to the neighbours. I was nice. I'm not complaining about a dog barking. I'm not complaining about neighbours having a dog. I'm complaining because they can't control their dog and I was scared.

shona2

hi ,i ment you were totaly right to say something,what i ment was dont worrie what thay think,my neighbors are just total busy bodies,thay were looking for a reason to do sumthing,
if you have nice neighbors thay will be nice about you saying it to them,if you have crappie neighbours like me thay will find some reason to be ****tie.

cyning

shona2 wrote: »

hi ,i ment you were totaly right to say something,what i ment was dont worrie what thay think,my neighbors are just total busy bodies,thay were looking for a reason to do sumthing,
if you have nice neighbors thay will be nice about you saying it to them,if you have crappie neighbours like me thay will find some reason to be ****tie.

Fair enough! Sorry

shona2

hope it went well for you, and bye the way thay sound not have had the dog out on the street of lead and not undercontrol.
i think you just have to do whats right for you and say something. i would be so upset if my dog done that to someone

Honey-ec

Ambersky wrote: »

Of course I agree with you ISDW the majority of responses have been supportive.
I guess I was responding to Honey-ec s posts without actually saying so and I made it sound too general as though all dog owners were defending the behaviour. Honey-ec posts seemed like a defense of dogs roaming or being let off lead.

Oy vey. Read back over my post. My "defense of dogs roaming" was pointing out that the law does not require dogs to be kept on a lead in order to be under effective control. You will also note that I said in the OP's case that the dog was clearly not under effective control.

As for this:

Ambersky wrote: »

I guess I was responding to Honey-ec s posts without actually saying so

Grow a pair. We're all adults here, I'm not going to get upset if you feel the need to disagree with me directly.

T-Square

Dog warden?

I can't remember the last time I saw one.

Do they still exist? didn't the councils get rid of them?

Either way, I feel sorry for the OP.
I don't think anything can be done.

Have you considered having a séance and calling The Equaliser?