Dagnerous Dogs off the leash w/o muzzle

Bullseye1

Why not ask the dog owner to put his dog on a leash. Maybe he will be good about it. If not call the DW and report the owner.

dr ro

it pisses me off when the owner of an unleashed dog tells me that my kids are fine in reaction to the fear they see in my kids' faces as their dog runs over and sniffs them. These idiots obviously have no awareness of how a big mouthed dog could be intimidating to a toddler. There are bad dogs, and there are terrible owners.

Langerland

kramxw wrote: »

For the OP, from www.citzensinformations.ie

The Control of Dogs Regulations 1998 (S.I. No. 442 of 1998) impose additional rules in relation to the following breeds (and strains/cross-breeds) of dog in Ireland:

* American Pit Bull Terrier
* English Bull Terrier
* Staffordshire Bull Terrier
* Bull Mastiff
* Dobermann Pinscher
* German Shepherd (Alsatian)
* Rhodesian Ridgeback
* Rottweiler
* Japanese Akita
* Japanese Tosa
* Bandog

The rules state that:

* These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must be kept on a short strong lead by a person over 16 years who is capable of controlling them
* These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must be muzzled whenever they are in a public place
* These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must wear a collar bearing the name and address of their owner at all times.

So if its a Staffordshire or Pit Bull Terrier (strain or cross), irrespective of how good or bad the owner, the dog should be on a short leash, muzzled and owners details on the dog's collar.

so that seems quite clear...regardless of peoples views on good dogs, bad dogs, good owners, bad owners, dogs under control or not, etc etc etc

Those breeds absolutely have to be muzzled when in public places? So the gentleman I mentioned in the original post was breaking the law?

G.MAN

This thread is pathetic.I have 3 dogs all very well trained and not one of the so called dangerous breeds.I would never have them off the lead in residential areas even though i have no worries about their behaviour.You have to respect other peoples fear of dogs even if it can seem irrational!
I let them off leads in fields and down the quiet area of kilcoole beach.
So I agree with the general theme of this topic but I think the arguments are ridiculous.Can we stop blaming the dogs? They are animals,if they are out of control it is a problem with the owners.

d'Oracle

I love the lack of rationality that this kind of stuff brings up.

Its hilarious.
I just had a quick read through the thread and NOONE has blamed the dogs.
Yet there are tonnes of poster acting like there is some slight against all dog kind.

thebullkf

Phsyche wrote: »

http://www.ucd.ie/news/0710_october/081007_dog_bite.html

eh......

where does it mention Labs in this article?


did you even read it?:rolleyes:

“The majority of the dogs involved in the attacks were male dogs between 2-6 years old, over 10kg in body weight and were among the popular breeds of Collies, Cocker/Springer Spaniels, Terrier breeds, Jack Russell Terriers, German Shepherds, and Golden Retrievers,” said O’Sullivan. “And the biting incidents were equally likely to occur in rural and urban/suburban areas.”

thebullkf

G.MAN wrote: »

This thread is pathetic.I have 3 dogs all very well trained and not one of the so called dangerous breeds.I would never have them off the lead in residential areas even though i have no worries about their behaviour.You have to respect other peoples fear of dogs even if it can seem irrational!
I let them off leads in fields and down the quiet area of kilcoole beach.
So I agree with the general theme of this topic but I think the arguments are ridiculous.Can we stop blaming the dogs? They are animals,if they are out of control it is a problem with the owners.

you've answered your own question.

they're animals!

there are good dogs, and bad dogs.


there are good owners and bad owners.

you cannot say that all dog attacks are the owners fault.

because its just not true:eek:

White_Wolf

To be quite honest most dogs will not attack a human unless they are mistreated, if I had kids I would not even bat an eyelid if I seen a pitbul running around near my kids, they are great family pets and our great with childern. I hate people that pick on dogs saying oh they are all dangerous and will eat your kids, no.

thebullkf

White_Wolf wrote: »

To be quite honest most dogs will not attack a human unless they are mistreated, if I had kids I would not even bat an eyelid if I seen a pitbul running around near my kids, they are great family pets and our great with childern. I hate people that pick on dogs saying oh they are all dangerous and will eat your kids, no.

SWEET LORD.

White_Wolf

What? I grew up with dogs so maybe it is just me, most dogs are good. There are however some dogs that get agitated easily, that cannot be stopped they are always going to be there. Teach your kids how to handle dogs from a young age, stops irrational fear later on in life.

foxy06

My neighbour has 2 dogs. One very vicious and the other very tame. Same owner but the vicious one is one of the breeds on that list the other is a mix of terrier and something else. Two different dogs two different personalities same owner. And I certainly wouldn't let my kids anywhere near any of those on the list. Call me crazy but I have never seen reports on Sky News of children being mauled by labradors.

cuddlycavies

d'Oracle wrote: »

I love the lack of rationality that this kind of stuff brings up.

Its hilarious.
I just had a quick read through the thread and NOONE has blamed the dogs.
Yet there are tonnes of poster acting like there is some slight against all dog kind.

Spot on. Subjects like this bring out the worst of peoples inate selfishness. A bit like gun control or smoking. In the meantime the green areas in our estate are used daily as a dog toilet as is the coastal path and every year someone is ''shocked'' when an animal they trust mutilates one of their kids. Think I saw the PBT in question towing a child on a bike the other day. Madness. But I'll bet the owner would say ''wouldn't hurt a fly,etc''. We're getting as bad as the English where animals are concerned.

thebullkf

I would not even bat an eyelid if I seen a pitbul running around near my kids....

that was the reason for my comment.

White_Wolf wrote: »

What? I grew up with dogs so maybe it is just me, most dogs are good. There are however some dogs that get agitated easily, that cannot be stopped they are always going to be there. Teach your kids how to handle dogs from a young age, stops irrational fear later on in life.

thats more like it;)

cyrusdvirus

d'Oracle wrote: »

I love the lack of rationality that this kind of stuff brings up.

Its hilarious.
I just had a quick read through the thread and NOONE has blamed the dogs.
Yet there are tonnes of poster acting like there is some slight against all dog kind.

Did you not see the sentence in the OP that said 'these dogs are lethal'?

Annasopra

White_Wolf wrote: »

if I had kids I would not even bat an eyelid if I seen a pitbul running around near my kids, .

I think you would feel differently if you did have actually have children

The Guide

I love dogs and have always had dogs with my children growing up but...the only dog I really trusted around or licking my children was my own because that is the only dog you know well enough to let near your children.

dr ro

i don't think a fear of dogs is irrational. Going to hell or walking under ladders maybe, but not dogs.

DryBlanket

Hi,

Need a bit of advice here.

I was entering a restaurant in Dublin at the weekend and a gentleman was sitting outside with his SBT. Although he later told me the dog has never been anything but docile the dog growled angrily and made several attempts to bite me. It succeeded in ripping my clothes but luckily that was as close as it got. I have to admit is was terrifying.

He let it slip that the dog had been bred to fight by a previous owner but got dumped.

I can probably trace the gentleman as he seemed to know the staff there by name.

Should I trace him and have the dog reported? Or should I trust the gentleman who said he'd make sure it wont happen again and let it go?

any advice welcome

DB.

Jelly2

DryBlanket wrote: »

Hi,

Need a bit of advice here.

I was entering a restaurant in Dublin at the weekend and a gentleman was sitting outside with his SBT. Although he later told me the dog has never been anything but docile the dog growled angrily and made several attempts to bite me. It succeeded in ripping my clothes but luckily that was as close as it got. I have to admit is was terrifying.

He let it slip that the dog had been bred to fight by a previous owner but got dumped.

I can probably trace the gentleman as he seemed to know the staff there by name.

Should I trace him and have the dog reported? Or should I trust the gentleman who said he'd make sure it wont happen again and let it go?

any advice welcome

DB.

Yes, I would! If the dog is an SBT, he should be muzzled in a public place. He was clearly not under the control of his handler, and you have only his word that he will not allow it to happen again. I like SBTs, but this one and his owner are not giving the breed good publicity.

DryBlanket

Jelly2 wrote: »

Yes, I would! If the dog is an SBT, he should be muzzled in a public place. He was clearly not under the control of his handler, and you have only his word that he will not allow it to happen again. I like SBTs, but this one and his owner are not giving the breed good publicity.

Thanks for the reply.

I have been told today that if I report this SBT then it will be put down. For the record I do not hate dogs. Some experiences in my youth mean I dont trust them but I do not hate them. I dont want to see this dog put down but I need some peace of mind about the whole thing.

So I suppose the question changes from should I report him to - can an SBT actually be trained to not do something like this again? Or is it a case that zero tolerance is the best approach and once an SBT acts like this once they should never be trusted again?

DB

Jelly2

Maybe there is a difference here between actually biting you and trying to bit you? Perhaps you could phone the ISPCA or local dog pound to see what their attitude would be. Maybe the owner would just get a visit and a warning that the dog should be muzzled in public, if you stressed that you were not actually bitten but that you had legitimate fear that you might be.

seamus

DryBlanket wrote: »

I have been told today that if I report this SBT then it will be put down. For the record I do not hate dogs. Some experiences in my youth mean I dont trust them but I do not hate them. I dont want to see this dog put down but I need some peace of mind about the whole thing.

More than likely the dog will be put down based on a judicial order.

So I suppose the question changes from should I report him to - can an SBT actually be trained to not do something like this again? Or is it a case that zero tolerance is the best approach and once an SBT acts like this once they should never be trusted again?

Breed is irrelevant. Ultimately there's no guarantee that the dog will ever do something like this again. Nor any guarantee that it won't.

There's a reason why the dog decided to snap at you. There's usually some form of conditioning involved; either deliberate or as a result of the dog's experience which made the dog react in the way that it did. If this reason can be identified, then yes it can be "trained out" of any dog.

It's really a matter for your own conscience. If you'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he will attempt to rehabilitate the dog, then leave it. If you believe that this dog poses a grave public danger, then you can report it.

If you're worrying about the breed issue, then take it out of the equation - would you report him if the dog was a labrador or a jack russell? If yes, then report him. If no, then don't.

I would personally get in touch with the guy to discuss it with him and encourage him to surrender the dog to a specialist rescue if I felt he wasn't capable of giving it the attention it needs. But then, given the forum that I mod, I know that most people wouldn't go to that length. Without being there I can't really say whether or not the dog is a danger - it's possible it was being playful or the reaction/attack wasn't what you thought it was. That you are nervous/distrusting around dogs could cloud your judgement - no offence intended.

Maybe there is a difference here between actually biting you and trying to bit you? Perhaps you could phone the ISPCA or local dog pound to see what their attitude would be. Maybe the owner would just get a visit and a warning that the dog should be muzzled in public, if you stressed that you were not actually bitten but that you had legitimate fear that you might be.

How it works is that if any dog of any breed is reported for having damaged property or persons, the warden has a right to seize the animal while they prepare a charge against the owner. At this point, the warden will usually encourage the owner to sign the dog over, at which stage the warden will simply put the dog down.
If the owner refuses to sign the dog over, the warden can make an application to a judge to have the dog declared legally dangerous and destroy it. In order to declare a dog legally dangerous, it has to have caused injury to a person or damage to property. So in this case, the torn clothes would probably be enough.

loyatemu

there's a duplicate discussion of this incident over in the Animal forum and that forum in general is probably a better place to discuss this whole topic.