Boy savaged by stray dog in council park gets €25k

Run_to_da_hills

Landmark ruling makes councils responsible for stray dogs on their properties etc. Child gets 25k after stray alsation bikes him and then dissapears.

Expect a nationwide clampdown on dog licenses, strays and the possibility of mandatory microchipping in the near future. Perhaps no harm.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/boy-savaged-by-dog-gets-euro25000-2612655.html

Keyzer

I have sympathy for the lad in regards his injuries but I don't understand why the state is held liable.

Would the state be held liable if this happened in someone's backyard or on private property.

Run_to_da_hills

Keyzer wrote: »

I have sympathy for the lad in regards his injuries but I don't understand why the state is held liable.

Would the state be held liable if this happened in someone's backyard or on private property.

It should be up to the state to make sure that its parks are safe for the public, it's up to them to inforce laws on leads, stray Muts etc.

Private property is a different matter, the owner of the property could possibly be made liable in this case.

Cookie_Monster

How is any council expected to know who or what is on their land every second of the day?

While it theory it sounds good it would be impossible to deal with in reality and at the end of the day the owner of the dog should be liable (if can be found obviously).

seamus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Expect a nationwide clampdown on dog licenses, strays and the possibility of mandatory microchipping in the near future. Perhaps no harm.

I won't hold my breath.

Rather than actually do the right thing, first out of the traps will be, "We need to ban all dangerous dogs to keep our children safe". I can actually see county councils decide that banning RB's from public parks is the way to go, ignoring the fact that it won't solve the problem which led to this child's injury. If they did decide to do this, I'd just ignore it anyway and tell any warden or ranger to go fnck themselves.

Cookie_Monster

seamus wrote: »

I won't hold my breath.

Rather than actually do the right thing, first out of the traps will be, "We need to ban all dangerous dogs to keep our children safe". I can actually see county councils decide that banning RB's from public parks is the way to go, ignoring the fact that it won't solve the problem which led to this child's injury. If they did decide to do this, I'd just ignore it anyway and tell any warden or ranger to go fnck themselves.

why stop there, let's ban all pets, no all animals full stop. It's the only way to save the children Joe, won't somebaody think of the children. Joe, Joe!!! :mad::mad:

angelfire9

The decision is being appealed

Chris_Heilong

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why stop there, let's ban all pets, no all animals full stop. It's the only way to save the children Joe, won't somebaody think of the children. Joe, Joe!!! :mad::mad:

Is this not what has happened to our once fair country, look at Ireland now, where you cant even bring a dog onto public transport, shop or even some outside eateries. I feel we have become very animal unfriendly and so many people grow up never owning a pet and just think they are dirty and disgusting, which could not be further from the truth. I have no car so being a dog owner I am very limited to where I can go, I am lucky to have st Anns park only 10 mins from my home but others are not as lucky, The pet Expo was the only time I felt a little freedom while being out with my dogs.

pitbull_fanatic

i can smell a rb ban comin...

magentas

yet another example of one irresponsible dog owner giving all dogs/owners bad names.
IMO the dog wasn't a stray or he would have been found since, he was probably let wander by the idiot owner. A dog should always be under control in a public area, I don't mean on a lead etc. as a lot of users of public parks seem to be under the impression that dogs must always be on a lead in public places, my dogs are almost always off lead in my local park but always completely under my control and always in sight.
I can't see why the council had to pay out here in fairness, each owner should be held responsible for their dogs and every dog should be chipped.

Although my rant is irrelevant here because in this case, no dog or owner was ever found:o

Whispered

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

i can smell a rb ban comin...

Well my boxer/lab cross wont be affected by that. :pac:

Seriously though, do you think so?

How would such a ban be put in place? What happened in NI? Phased in, or one morning you wake up and are told your previously fine family dog is now a raving monster and must be pts?

Also, just in case, which is the most dog friendly country in Europe? I would like to have some form of back up plan

tallus

I'd just ignore it anyway and tell any warden or ranger to go fnck themselves.

Isn't it attitudes like this that caused the attack to happen in the first place ?

People Ignoring the law.

To be honest, I expected a more mature response from a moderator on this forum.

Discodog

tallus wrote: »

To be honest, I expected a more mature response from a moderator on this forum.

I think it most refreshing to see any poster, especially a Mod , advocating lawful civil disobedience. We have appalling dog laws & thousands of dead strays because the majority of animal lovers do nothing to change the situation.

Maybe Seamus would take his day in Court as I would.

In reality it will mean a total ban on any dog, in any park, at any time. The Councils will simply not be able to risk it. The poor dogs get killed & the owners remain unpunished.

ppink

If they cant find the dog and cant find the owner, how can they even say for sure it is a GSD who attacked the boy?

tallus

Discodog wrote: »

I think it most refreshing to see any poster, especially a Mod , advocating lawful civil disobedience. We have appalling dog laws & thousands of dead strays because the majority of animal lovers do nothing to change the situation.

Maybe Seamus would take his day in Court as I would.

In reality it will mean a total ban on any dog, in any park, at any time. The Councils will simply not be able to risk it. The poor dogs get killed & the owners remain unpunished.

What can be lawful about breaking the law ?

The animal laws may be appalling, but they are still the law of the land.

I don't think moderators should advocate breaking said laws, no matter how morally right or wrong they are.

ISDW

tallus wrote: »

What can be lawful about breaking the law ?

The animal laws may be appalling, but they are still the law of the land.

I don't think moderators should advocate breaking said laws, no matter how morally right or wrong they are.

well technically he hasn't advocated breaking any law, as the law doesn't exist - he was talking about a hypothetical situation that may possibly occur in the future:)

adser53

Exactly ISDW and I agree with him.

Tallus if the council banned your dog would you just fall into line?

tallus

adser53 wrote: »

Exactly ISDW and I agree with him.

Tallus if the council banned your dog would you just fall into line?

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference if I have a dog or not, I was referring to the comments made about breaking a certain law if one was added to the statue books. Simple as that.

Do you think we should conveniently ignore laws that we don't agree with ? I don't.

gman2k

tallus wrote: »

Do you think we should conveniently ignore laws that we don't agree with ? I don't.

Wow, that's a real lie down and let them do what they want attitude.
If everyone took take attitude there would be no Gandhi, no Nelson Mandela, no womens emancipation, we'd all be working 60 hour weeks and living on absentee landlord owned land.

It's a citizens duty to ignore and fight against unjust laws, not just go -meh, it's the law, shure what can we do?

tallus

gman2k wrote: »

Wow, that's a real lie down and let them do what they want attitude.
If everyone took take attitude there would be no Gandhi, no Nelson Mandela, no womens emancipation, we'd all be working 60 hour weeks and living on absentee landlord owned land.

It's a citizens duty to ignore and fight against unjust laws, not just go -meh, it's the law, shure what can we do?

We're not exactly living in an Apartheid state now are we ? Why not try to show a bit of common sense? South Africa was an Apartheid state, and India was still part of the British empire. Your comparison has zero merit.

gman2k

tallus wrote: »

We're not exactly living in an Apartheid state now are we ? Why not try to show a bit of common sense? South Africa was an Apartheid state, and India was still part of the British empire. Your comparison has zero merit.

My comparison is founded on common sense, again, if enough citizens feel that laws are unjust, then they should disobey them.
Many restricted breed owners would agree with me, as they are fearful of their family pets being removed/ destroyed at some stage because of the ignorance of lawmakers.

WIZE

i dont think dogs should be kept on the lead once the owner is there to supervise their animal
the council should be monitoring cases where dogs are allowed to wander out of the house or garden and have free will to go and do anything they like. these owners need to learn that it contributes to attacks on people other animals and car accidents.

microchips should be complusry

if these people are caught there licence fees should be increased and fines given to cover the costs of the council being sued for strays

Cookie_Monster

While I like dogs and generally have no problem I have been chased and snapped at numerous times while out on the bike. This scares the hell outa me and annoys me that people are too lazy to control their dogs within their gardens when they are not around.

As usual it travellers that's the main issue, cos they know nothing will be done against them. There's a group just north of Ashford that let about 10 dogs wander out on the old N11 and they're very aggressive

tallus

gman2k wrote: »

My comparison is founded on common sense, again, if enough citizens feel that laws are unjust, then they should disobey them.
Many restricted breed owners would agree with me, as they are fearful of their family pets being removed/ destroyed at some stage because of the ignorance of lawmakers.

If citizens feel laws are unjust they can contact their local politician/councillor to petition and have the laws amended or changed.
The likes of Nelson Mandella, and Ghandi didn't really have that option, so I don't agree that you were exercising common sense as the comparison holds no merit (in my opinion). Of course, you're welcome to disagree with me.

Discodog

WIZE wrote: »

microchips should be complusry

Exactly. You should have to present your microchip certificate at the PO & the chip number should be on your license. Then the PO give you a collar tag to show that your dog is licensed & chipped. As with tax discs the collar tags could be coloured to indicate the month.

Simple, easy & no additional costs to the Local Authorities.

WIZE

did u live in Germany by any chance

Devi

In fairness if the warden did his job these incidents would be reduced, in Co Kildare there are roaming dogs all over the place chasing cars, bikes, barking at people and annoying people who are responsibly walking their dogs on leash. When ye ring the warden (there’s only one for the whole of kildare) he usually doesn’t answer or tells ye that there is nothing that can be done. BS, ye can get up off yer fat arse and fine the owners. Then they wouldn’t do it again.