dog wardens rights and council to put a dog to sleep

ojgetsoff

I am desperately looking for some advice, I have 2 german shepherds - Jill and Zabaka - since pups one is 2 years and 1 is 8 months.
I keep them on my 1 acre garden surrounded by an 8 foot fence and a radio control fence.

2 weeks ago I got a call the dog warden had entered my property with the gardai and told me he was taking my dogs. a neighbour had complained that one of the dogs had attacked her according to the dogwarden, spoke to my neighbour. And what had happened was the gate had been left open by a friend staying at the house and one of the dogs took a run out through the gate to try and escape the shock just as this happened my neighbour was jogging by and it frightened the life out of her which it would, the dog then tried to snap at the toe of her shoe so the woman was paralysed with fear and a lorry driver came along and the dog ran back in.

I appreciate the people should be able to walk the public roads without worries of dogs and I would never keep a dog that I thought could harm another person or animal. My problem is I have been told that the dog is to be put to sleep for this incident as it is a german shepherd and a dangerous dog, but they are returning the other dog to me on thursday after the warden gets back from his holidays.
I spoke to the head if the environment section when he came back from his leave telling him if there is any steps I can take to save the dog I will do it, I've since installed electric gates and increased the power of the dog fence and committed to send the dog to behavioural correction training also after discussions with all my neighbours I am going to rehome the dog so there could never be a reoccurance. The head of the environment called me last night to say unless I sign the dog over to them for destruction they will keep it in the pound forbidding me to see it until it goes to court upon which there has never been a single case of a judge ruling in favour of the dog so it will be destroyed anyway.

This is heartbreaking and seems really unjust and unfair that this is the way the system in Ireland works, has anyone out there any experience or any suggestions how I can save my dogs life?

jhegarty

Go to a solicitor asap.

kmick

It sounded like the dog attacked her in some fashion. If thats the case its unfortunate because he will have to be destroyed. Talk to a solicitor and get an opinion but if the dog lunged at her and tried to bite her you wont have a leg to stand on.

Co45

then tried to snap at the toe of her shoe

Doesn't look like the dog physically harmed her. My dogs tend to playfull snap at my feet when I am running somewhere, a lot of dogs do it for some reason.
Can you clarify, did the dog physically bite her or did the dog aggressively try to bite her?

seamus

Copy and paste from the thread on the Animals forum:

Having looked at the specific legislation there doesn't seem to be any automatic euthanisation order for dogs listed as dangerous breeds, rather that it's simply an offence to not have the dog muzzled or on a leash in public.

If the court is satisfied that the dog is "dangerous", the court will order its destruction. A dog is usually defined as "dangerous" if it can be shown that damage or injury was caused to someone or something by the animal.

So fight it. Get a solicitor, do everything you can to convince the court that the dog is not dangerous and did not actually inflict any injury. Talk to your neighbour and get her summoned as a witness if she's willing to testify that she was simply startled by the dog and has a fear of dogs, but she was never injured by the animal.

I seriously doubt that the judge rules in favour of the dog warden every single time. The warden is probably saying that to save himself the hassle of filling out the paperwork and going to court.

The warden can only seize your animal in order to ascertain whether an offence has been committed - in this case the offence of not having the animal under proper control. Having the dog declared "dangerous" requires the warden to go to court and make his case before a judge. The warden absolutely cannot put your dog down without going to court.

So I would call down there and talk to him face-to-face to resolve this before it gets to court. He spends all day every day handling dogs owned by idiots and scumbags who've been trained to attack people, so if you can demonstrate to him that you're not one of these people and your dog isn't dangerous, he may be willing to listen to reason and only go for the standard on-the-spot fine for not having your dog under proper control.

Under no circumstances should you sign the dog over to anyone.

You might even get lucky with the people who work in the pound - having looked after your dog, they may also be willing to plead on the dog's behalf that he's not aggressive or dangerous.

Cunsiderthis

Seamus is giving sound advice and you should consult a solicitor immediately.

While you love your dogs (we all love our dogs), you also have an obligation to have them under control and the fact is that one of them got out, was not under your control, and did attack someone.

You may well convince the court that installing electric gates will mean the problem of letting your dogs out by mistake can't happen again. Increasing the power of the fence seems to be irrelevant as the dogs didn't get out via the fence.

Additionally, your past experience will be relevant and its not true that a court "never" rules against a destruction order. Otherwise there would be no need for a court to make a judgement!

Reloc8

Go to solicitor immediately. Sign nothing.

It is not true to say there has 'never been a single case of a judge finding in favour to the dog'.

Locust

seamus wrote: »

Having looked at the specific legislation there doesn't seem to be any automatic euthanisation order for dogs listed as dangerous breeds, rather that it's simply an offence to not have the dog muzzled or on a leash in public.

If the court is satisfied that the dog is "dangerous", the court will order its destruction. A dog is usually defined as "dangerous" if it can be shown that damage or injury was caused to someone or something by the animal.

So fight it.

The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998 has already blanketed that a German Shepherd is a 'dangerous dog' (there's a list set in legislation) - and the dogs on the list are subject to stricter regulations...
Hence the Dog generally loses when court comes (sadly & unfortunately)...

seamus

Locust wrote: »

The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998 has already blanketed that a German Shepherd is a 'dangerous dog' (there's a list set in legislation) - and the dogs on the list are subject to stricter regulations...
Hence the Dog generally loses when court comes (sadly & unfortunately)...

Said regulations make no comment about the risk or threat posed by dogs on the list, it simply sets down additional restrictions in regards to those breeds. The court still needs to be shown that the animal has caused injury or is likely to cause injury.

Being on the list of restricted breeds doesn't automatically qualify the dog as "dangerous" in law.

Locust

No, the legislation doesn't say about the risk or threat posed... it cannot. it merely gives a list of restricted breeds. How did those breeds get on that list? I believe statistics would show these dogs to be involved in a higher number of attacks on humans and livestock over the years. Thus the list. They are the more dangerous breeds.

There are on the list because they are more dangerous dogs by nature, any Judge or John Smith knows that. They know they can cause serious harm, disfigurement and can kill - meaning those dogs are dealt with more seriously in the District Court when a complaint is recieved.

Lets look at the facts according to OP:-
The Dog Warden & Gardai are involved,
The dog wasn't muzzled,
wasn't on a lead,
was however in a public place
At least two witnesses to say the dog (which is on the dangerous list) ran at her and snapped its teeth at a woman (attempting to bite?) and as a result she was paralysed with fear? Is that correct?
Once again i'm sorry but it sounds like the poor dog doesn't have a chance.

seamus

Locust wrote: »

No, the legislation doesn't say about the risk or threat posed... it cannot. it merely gives a list of restricted breeds. How did those breeds get on that list? I believe statistics would show these dogs to be involved in a higher number of attacks on humans and livestock over the years. Thus the list. They are the more dangerous breeds.

There are on the list because they are more dangerous dogs by nature, any Judge or John Smith knows that. They know they can cause serious harm, disfigurement and can kill - meaning those dogs are dealt with more seriously in the District Court when a complaint is recieved.

I won't get into this too indepth cos it's offtopic here - a more robust discussion can be had on the Animals forum if you wish. The restricted breeds list contains a list of breeds arbitrarily picked due to a bad public and media image and which are popular with dog fighting rings because of their strength and tenacity.
Most of the breeds on the list are among the most loyal and human-friendly in the dog world with the most even temperaments. The breed responsible for the most attacks - the Labrador - doesn't appear on this list for no other reason than it has a good public image. Small dogs are equally capable of causing serious harm as big dogs. My wife met a woman yesterday with a scar that went all the way from her ear to under her chin after she was attacked by her pet Pom. No, I'm not joking.

This is why a breed being on the restricted list doesn't automatically qualify it as a "dangerous dog". Dogs are individually dangerous, being a member of a specific breed of dog doesn't make that dog inherently any more dangerous than the next.

As I say, any more is offtopic, there is an animals forum if you'd like discuss or debate the issue further.

Cunsiderthis

Locust wrote: »

No, the legislation doesn't say about the risk or threat posed... it cannot. it merely gives a list of restricted breeds. How did those breeds get on that list? I believe statistics would show these dogs to be involved in a higher number of attacks on humans and livestock over the years. Thus the list. They are the more dangerous breeds.

There are on the list because they are more dangerous dogs by nature, any Judge or John Smith knows that. They know they can cause serious harm, disfigurement and can kill - meaning those dogs are dealt with more seriously in the District Court when a complaint is recieved.

Lets look at the facts according to OP:-
The Dog Warden & Gardai are involved,
The dog wasn't muzzled,
wasn't on a lead,
was however in a public place
At least two witnesses to say the dog (which is on the dangerous list) ran at her and snapped its teeth at a woman (attempting to bite?) and as a result she was paralysed with fear? Is that correct?
Once again i'm sorry but it sounds like the poor dog doesn't have a chance.

There are not mandatory sentences for dogs!

It's open to the court to interpret each situation as it finds it. While you have outlined the "facts" , there is more to them than that - its also a fact the the dogs are normally kept securely, and this security was breached by a stranger, and the householder has taken steps to ensure ( whatever that means) that a strenger can't make the same mistake in future.

The owners seem responsible and also seem to understand and accept that they were at fault, and its quite within the remit of the court to take all that into consideration when making a judgement.

ojgetsoff

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055836621

I have been updating the above forum with the dogs progress, everyones input so far has been fantastic if only the other parties involved had the knowledge that some of the posters here have
many thanks and please follow the above thread if you have time , i read and take into account everything thats been said, it all helps

Victor

ojgetsoff wrote: »

one of the dogs took a run out through the gate to try and escape the shock

Do you mean the dog got through the shock of the radio control fence? Should that be reviewed?

DeeRottie

ojgetsoff do you have any update on Jill?

nuac

Dog gone?

DeeRottie

Hope not