Jap Akita PTS beacuse of owner

gud4u

Once again the spotlight is on the RB dog community.

A Japanese Akita had to be put down because it's owner willingly let it to roam in it's estate. The dog was friendly towards people and the local kids played with it.

By it's own nature, it went further a field and frightened some sheep but one later died and others were missing, the owner even tried to replace the animals for the farmer, who was willing for a while, but a judge still had the dog pts.

The owner was devasted, but what should they expect if they are going to leave a large breed dog to roam free unsupervised.

Will some people ever learn.

andreac

Where did you hear this? Link?

gud4u

In our local newspaper, i'ii try and get a link.

andreac

So again, owner at fault and dog suffers for it :mad:

Discodog

It's here:

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/news/council-wins-order-to-put-down-dog-3025751.html

Good old Ireland - the owner only gets a €60 fine & the dog gets killed :mad:

The Judge said the following: 'I will reluctantly order that the dog be destroyed,' said Judge Earley. 'Even gentle pets when they get into packs can act in the manner described by Mrs Breen,'

With misinformation like this it is no wonder that we kill so many dogs. It also shows that it is critical to get expert witnesses if ever you are in a similar situation. The owner here was severely negligent but with Irish law any of us could end up in Court.

callmekenneth

Discodog wrote: »

It's here:

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/news/council-wins-order-to-put-down-dog-3025751.html

Good old Ireland - the owner only gets a €60 fine & the dog gets killed :mad:

The Judge said the following: 'I will reluctantly order that the dog be destroyed,' said Judge Earley. 'Even gentle pets when they get into packs can act in the manner described by Mrs Breen,'

With misinformation like this it is no wonder that we kill so many dogs. It also shows that it is critical to get expert witnesses if ever you are in a similar situation. The owner here was severely negligent but with Irish law any of us could end up in Court.

where specifically is the misinformation?

gud4u

Discodog wrote: »

It's here:

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/news/council-wins-order-to-put-down-dog-3025751.html

Good old Ireland - the owner only gets a €60 fine & the dog gets killed :mad:

The Judge said the following: 'I will reluctantly order that the dog be destroyed,' said Judge Earley. 'Even gentle pets when they get into packs can act in the manner described by Mrs Breen,'

With misinformation like this it is no wonder that we kill so many dogs. It also shows that it is critical to get expert witnesses if ever you are in a similar situation. The owner here was severely negligent but with Irish law any of us could end up in Court.

Thanks, I'm not too PC friendly:o

andreac

I dont see anything wrong here either, the dog was worrying livestock, yes the owner is at fault but the dog was still in the wrong by damaging and worrying livestock.

The owner should have got a harder sentence/fine, and possibly given a warning to keep the dog under control, but it seems like they were very irresponsible owners and the poor dog paid for it.

gud4u

It's such a pity, the dog actually sounds like a lovely animal, but nature will take over the instincts, especially if they have a hunting buddy. With four dogs, I have them locked up, I'd be devasted if I had to put mine down. And it's my little JRT that would be the instigator.

Discodog

andreac wrote: »

Ibut the dog was still in the wrong by damaging and worrying livestock.

I am a little surprised that you would hold this view. Your dogs know right & wrong because you have taught them. In this case the dog was untrained & left to roam. The dog has no concept of right & wrong. It didn't look at the livestock & weigh up whether it should chase or not. It didn't balance the pros & cons.

The best solution would of been for the Judge to order that the dog be handed over to an appropriate rescue for assessment & training with a view to rehoming it. Rather than fines the owner should be made to pay all the costs of rehoming the dog.

callmekenneth wrote: »

where specifically is the misinformation?

I have a "pack" of three domestic dogs, including two sighthounds, that are let off lead together every day within a few yards of livestock. They jump up on the walls & the cows lick the dogs noses. The farmer even helped me by allowing me to walk my new guy in the field to get him used to livestock.

His Judgement implies that the dog is a "gentle pet" so why kill it ? He didn't seek any expert opinion or assessment of the dog.

Shanao

Firstly, highly doubt it was an akita inu, probably an american, but that's besides the point.

Anyone, ANYONE, who lets an akita roam shouldn't have a dog fullstop. You should never, ever let one off lead, and unfortunately, because of this man's ignorance, a beautiful dog has been put to sleep. Cannot stress this enough, akitas on lead all the time. And not simply because they are an RB, but because they have an incredibly high prey drive and will give chase when something moves.

It is lambing season and there will be countless dogs shot this year again because of irresponsible owners. Unfair yes, most definitely, but the farmer's have every right to protect their livestock too. The same way that dog owners should be protecting their pets, yet a lot of them constantly fail to do so

andreac

I didnt say i blame the dog for its actions, that was the owners fault for allowing it to roam. Dogs are animals after all and will do what comes naturally, but the dog was still terrorising the stock.

Yes maybe the judge should have gone about it differently and the dog shouldnt have suffered but i dont see where the misinformation was.

Should there not be a warning first ?

Discodog

andreac wrote: »

Yes maybe the judge should have gone about it differently and the dog shouldnt have suffered but i dont see where the misinformation was.

If we keep punishing the totally innocent dogs & hardly punishing the owners it just reinforces the message that dogs are disposable. It also harks back to the old discredited "can't teach a old dog" & "once he's tasted blood" tales. There is nothing to stop this owner doing the same thing with another dog.

Shanao

Discodog wrote: »

If we keep punishing the totally innocent dogs & hardly punishing the owners it just reinforces the message that dogs are disposable. It also harks back to the old discredited "can't teach a old dog" & "once he's tasted blood" tales. There is nothing to stop this owner doing the same thing with another dog.

That's the problem though, the owner gets away with a 60euro fine and a slap on the wrist. A hell of a lot more should have been done to the owner, who was also breaking the law by having an RB off lead and unmuzzled I might add (I know, i hate this law too, but this is the kind of guy who should be punished under it)

Discodog

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there not be a warning first ?

There are two ways that this can happen. One is where the farmer shoots the dog & the law should state that he can only do this as a last resort to prevent further injury to his livestock. He should not be allowed to shoot a dog just because it is on his land.

The second way, as in this case, is where the dog is apprehended after the event. This means that there is ample opportunity to ensure that the dog never worries livestock again so there is absolutely no reason to kill it.

We shouldn't let become an RB issue - many of the dogs that will be shot this Spring won't be RB's.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there not be a warning first ?

Actually no i re-thought about this , it is the owners fault, they should be fined alot more and the dog should be re-homed as there was no proof of it being aggressive. They should also be banned from owning dogs .

gud4u

Discodog wrote: »

There are two ways that this can happen. One is where the farmer shoots the dog & the law should state that he can only do this as a last resort to prevent further injury to his livestock. He should not be allowed to shoot a dog just because it is on his land.

The second way, as in this case, is where the dog is apprehended after the event. This means that there is ample opportunity to ensure that the dog never worries livestock again so there is absolutely no reason to kill it.

We shouldn't let become an RB issue - many of the dogs that will be shot this Spring won't be RB's.

That's what makes this case all the sadder, the dog was apprehended and could have been rehomed with an owner who would have kept it protected.

My father shot dogs when I was growing up, he hated it, but sheep are not cheap, and farmers depend on this livestock for a living. I don't think my father ever shot an RB, mainly JRs leading a pack of ordinary looking dogs. I'm not branding JRs, I have one myself.

Discodog

The problem is that the no one represents the dog in Court. Expert evidence is rarely called & even worse the Wardens are considered to be experts. Given the Judge's stated reluctance I suspect that a good expert witness, speaking on behalf of the dog, could of won a reprieve.

The only arguable reason to kill the dog is to prevent it from "re-offending". I suspect that this is behind some of the actions by LA's in that they don't want to be held responsible if the same thing happened again. But in this case it is a simple matter of not allowing the dog to roam or be offlead. There is a perfectly practical way to ensure that the animal cannot re-offend.

I haven't seen a transcript but I wonder if the defendant's lawyer offered this as an alternative. He could of offered a substantial amount of compensation together with a solemn undertaking that the dog would never be off lead or unsupervised. The Judge could of made an order such that if the animal is ever seen straying then the owners gets 28 days or a huge fine. In my experience Judges will consider alternatives if they are put to them.

callmekenneth

Discodog wrote: »

If we keep punishing the totally innocent dogs & hardly punishing the owners it just reinforces the message that dogs are disposable. It also harks back to the old discredited "can't teach a old dog" & "once he's tasted blood" tales. There is nothing to stop this owner doing the same thing with another dog.

while i agree that the owners are at fault here and deserve a lot more than a 60yoyo fine, you cant have a dog like this worrying sheep, and by worrying they mean stressing out and chasing to exhaustion. dogs are stupid, they're like big simple kids and if left to their own devices they are liable to get up to anything, it might be nothing more than a game for them but that's little solace to the farmer who's sheep he finds tangled up in barbed wire or miscarrying their unborn lambs.

pounds and rescues are overflowing with unwanted dogs that have done nothing but be good pets all their lives, here you have a giant potentially dangerous animal, not dangerous to humans but dangerous none the less. the owners should be banned from keeping dogs for 10 years.

Discodog

callmekenneth wrote: »

while i agree that the owners are at fault here and deserve a lot more than a 60yoyo fine, you cant have a dog like this worrying sheep, ........

pounds and rescues are overflowing with unwanted dogs that have done nothing but be good pets all their lives, here you have a giant potentially dangerous animal, not dangerous to humans but dangerous none the less. the owners should be banned from keeping dogs for 10 years.

I have already said how you can prevent the dog from "re-offending".

Giant potentially dangerous animal !. It could be a soft adorable pet. It is only a danger to livestock if it is not trained & allowed access. It isn't a case of good dogs versus bad dogs. They have to be taught right from wrong just like children.

FoxyVixen

A similiar case has recently occured here this side of the Shannon (can't find it online but seen it in the paper). Exact same story really. American Akita allowed to roam in an estate, gentle giant with kids in the estate, wandered off worrying sheep.

Farmer had informed the owner of it and nothing had been done, so it got brought to court. The farmer wanted the dog put to sleep but the owner had moved the dog to someone elses house hiding it.

Don't know the exact conclusion what happened to the dog. Think judge ruled if the dog was away it wouldn't hassle the sheep anymore. Owner got small fine, think it was 50euro.

Akitas quite simply are going to run after something if it turns tail, so should NEVER be left to their own devices without being in an enclosed space. As with the OP's case, with such small fines to those who are causing the offences, there's absolutely nothing stopping them going out, getting a new dog and having the same result happen again.

To allow a dog to roam is quite negligent, especially for those on the RB's list who IMO are quickly stereotyped should one fall into a circumstance as being described therefore flagging them as a dangerous breed!! Labs and pet collies cause more worry to livestock in my experience than any RB but they're never considered dangerous.

gud4u

''Sharon Smith said that she had left the dog off that evening and was planning on putting it back in when she returned from bringing her daughter to football training.''

This is why the dog got into trouble. Therefore She should be help accountable and not the dog

''Mrs Smith said that she did not know what had happened her dog at first or where it was. She went looking for it the next day, only to be informed by workers at a local garage that Thomas Breen had put the dog in his car and was taking it to the Dog Warden.''

I couldn't sleep if I knew one of the dogs were out..


''There was no name on its collar and the dog was not micro-chipped so he took it to a pound in Gorey, where the dog still remained at the time of last Wednesday's court case.''

I wonder could they appeal it, if they got a reputable person to take the dog, but maybe the judge is setting an example now. Just a thought.

Discodog

gud4u wrote: »

I wonder could they appeal it, if they got a reputable person to take the dog, but maybe the judge is setting an example now. Just a thought.

An example to who - other dogs ?

I wouldn't be surprised if the dog was killed pretty soon after the Judgement to avoid any further issues.

I reiterate that any dog owner should always have an emergency plan just in case.

That poor dog was held in the Pound for 6 months ! The owners had plenty of time to get a good defence sorted out. They could of gone to the Court as soon as the dog was seized & applied for it's conditional release.

FoxyVixen

gud4u wrote: »

I wonder could they appeal it, if they got a reputable person to take the dog, but maybe the judge is setting an example now. Just a thought.

Setting an example for who though?

Isn't it generally the case that when a dog causes worry to livestock, the immediate knee jerk reaction is to have the animal PTS as it has "tasted blood". Thereby being "dangerous" with the high probability of doing so again as the owner has clearly shown ignorance allowing it to roam??

Honestly, I think the judge made this call to just shut the case pronto. Keeps the farmer happy that the dog causing the damage has been destroyed, the owner happy walking away with just a slap on the wrist rather than a heavier penalty for not having immediate control of the animal in their care!

An open and shut case I'm sure in their eyes, rather than actually taking a proper look into the negligence the owner has shown towards their dog.

As far as I can see, no dog should EVER be allowed to roam to its own accord. Those who allow to do so should take responsibility of their animals, rather than having a perfectly normal dog acting on its instincts be put down because its owner didn't give a damn what it got up to!

DamagedTrax

so a RB dog was let to roam overnight with no muzzle AND wasnt micro-chipped?

way to be a responsible owner :mad:

IMO knee jerk reaction by the judge but the dogs death lies on the owners shoulders.

shame.

gud4u

I suppose I meant to other dog owners but then responsible dog owners wouldn't let it happen so it's a lesson to no one:mad: now that I think about it!!!

Knee jerk perhaps as was said above:(

Cherry Blossom

gud4u wrote: »

I suppose I meant to other dog owners but then responsible dog owners wouldn't let it happen so it's a lesson to no one:mad: now that I think about it!!!

Knee jerk perhaps as was said above:(

If you you ask me it sends a much more valuable lesson to others with the same attitude than if they came along and read a story about a dog that was sent away to live somewhere else, what's a better incentive to look after your pet ?

a. The dog may die as a result of your negligence, which you will have to explain to your kids (and in this case all the neighbourhood kids who had befriended the dog). If you lie to them, someone else is going to have read the story and they'll be asked/told about it by other people (other kids at school etc.)

b. It's grand, carry on as you are because the worst that can happen is a judge will order someone else to clean up your mess, and they will happily and willingly do so and your pet will live a happy and fulfilled life with someone else so your conscience will be clear.

No contest whatsoever imo.

Having just written that I'm remembering all the dogs in my lifetime that were kindly 'gifted' to my family in the middle of the night which we fixed, kept and allowed to live their life out with us, and I'm wondering if my conscience should be clear, in the bigger scheme of things - probably not.

Hellrazer

Reminds me of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056501260

and that didnt end well so can we keep this one nice.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

a. The dog may die as a result of your negligence,

How is that really a disincentive ? Ten of thousands allow their dogs to stray every day. They know that the dog could end up dead but they either believe that it won't happen to them or that the dog will of had a happier life roaming.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

b. It's grand, carry on as you are because the worst that can happen is a judge will order someone else to clean up your mess, and they will happily and willingly do so and your pet will live a happy and fulfilled life with someone else so your conscience will be clear.

If you were happy to allow the dog to roam how would it's death be on your conscience ? You of all people constantly go on about responsible ownership. By making the owner pay for the rehome, which could cost thousands especially if the dog is in a rescue for a long time, they pay the actual cost of their actions. It won't be a happy experience.

It can never be a justifiable excuse to kill a dog just so as to make it's owner feel guilty. Your conscience should be clear because in your past you appear to had a compassion that seems to have departed.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Reminds me of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056501260

and that didnt end well so can we keep this one nice.

Actually it ended because AJ decided that it had run it's course & not because of any real nastiness.

It did produce the best Mod comment ever from Starpants:

"rsole1 - infracted" - sounds like a painful medical condition