Dog killed and mutilated in its own garden by a pack of hunting dogs

fits

DBB wrote: »

In fairness, they did! In this thread at least. I'm assuming that this is the post that macy0161 was referring to:

I thought they were referring to the poster who said the gate was open. That poster wasn't saying that as an excuse.

angelfire9

Obviously I'm appalled at this story that should go without saying
Poor doggie
Poor owners to witness that
At best the hunt was negligent in not controlling the hounds
At worse there might be a case made for criminal negligence /criminal damage

To twist this slightly
If the hunt was going through farmland with livestock would the farmer not be entitled to shoot At the hounds if they were out of control?
So should the homeowner not have the same right?

Can I ask what would the doggy experts here (andreac or DBB) do if this situation arose at their home? Assuming no prior knowledge of the hunt if hounds came in and attacked a pet what can/should be done?
Would turning a hose on them have make a difference for example??

DBB

fits wrote: »

I thought they were referring to the poster who said the gate was open. That poster wasn't saying that as an excuse.

Do you not think so? I felt it was an excuse. But we'll agree to differ ;-)

dodderangler

The lads should be held responsible for this.
Did they inform the locals of a hunt? When I go out hunting with our without my dog I always knock into the landowner to let them know I am on the land. I have once or twice met other people on the land and have always approached them to let them know who I am and who I've permission off to be on the land.
These lads should've done the same especially with the amount of hounds they're out with

the_syco

angelfire9 wrote: »

To twist this slightly
If the hunt was going through farmland with livestock would the farmer not be entitled to shoot At the hounds if they were out of control?

Livestock being the key word. IIRC, as his livelihood is at risk, the farmer is allowed to protect his livestock.

angelfire9

the_syco wrote: »

Livestock being the key word. IIRC, as his livelihood is at risk, the farmer is allowed to protect his livestock.

I'd be more attached to a pet dog then a cow even if the cow has a greater material value

Macy0161

fits wrote: »

Ah come on now. Nobody said that. Nobody is defending this.

Really? Why was the open gate even mentioned? And...

Stinicker wrote: »

The poor little doggy met a sad and cruel end and that is no doubt but should have been kept in a secure place while a hunt was nearby.

I've seen the clarification re the gate, so I'll take that back

wexie

the_syco wrote: »

Livestock being the key word. IIRC, as his livelihood is at risk, the farmer is allowed to protect his livestock.

So would that imply that a regular person wouldn't have the right to defend their dog/cat/chickens etc?

Imhof Tank

DBB wrote: »

Do you not think so? I felt it was an excuse. But we'll agree to differ ;-)

Em, you may be at crossed purposes with Fits there I think Mod. You quoted Stiniker, Fits is I think referring to something I posted earlier as a point of information (that the hounds got into this garden via an open gate from the main road) That was most definitely not an excuse from me anyway - quite the opposite; a well drilled and managed pack should be well able to go past an open gate.

This pack weren't kept out - ask yourself who allowed that to happen?

DBB

angelfire9 wrote: »

Can I ask what would the doggy experts here (andreac or DBB) do if this situation arose at their home? Assuming no prior knowledge of the hunt if hounds came in and attacked a pet what can/should be done?
Would turning a hose on them have make a difference for example??

Any dog/animal owner would be entirely within their legal rights to do whatever they have to reasonably do to protect their stock or property, whether they knew the hunt was about or not.
What I would do personally if I had to is not really up for discussion on this forum, it's not the place for it. But I'd be happy to discuss it by pm if you'd like :-) Sorry if that seems like a cop-out, I hope you understand!

TooManyDogs

angelfire9 wrote: »

Would turning a hose on them have make a difference for example??

In my opinion it's highly unlikely a hose would have made any difference, when the blood is up to that degree with that many dogs unless you have stunning control over them and are there within seconds of it happening I would doubt that much could have stopped them.

I've had to call off my dogs from attacking a cat (that had come in to my own secure garden before anyone gives out!) and I have always gotten them off the cat very quickly but there are a couple of factors that are different to my mind.

I 'only' have 6 dogs rather than the size of an average hunting pack but even so there was always a dog looking for a sliver of lack of attention or distraction from me to get back at to cat because the were in a highly excited state and badly badly wanted to finish the job. The didn't get the opportunity because I was able to keep an eye on all of them but also because they are highly trained dogs used to working and training with me on a daily basis.
Had my husband been in the same situation with them I don't know if they would have responded as quickly because he doesn't train them daily. If the people calling off the dogs weren't the ones to work constantly with the dogs, or if the dogs don't get daily training then your chances of them listening to you in that kind of a situation are drastically reduced.

That's my opinion anyway

Dubl07

fits wrote: »

I thought they were referring to the poster who said the gate was open. That poster wasn't saying that as an excuse.

That poster was spreading the blame to the owners of the pet-dog and the property on which it was killed.

As I've said before, this is rural Ireland.

People don't live in gated compounds nor should they be expected to do so. A cattle grid at the entrance to a rural driveway should be an adequate differentiation between an urban and rural residence. We don't need electric fences around family homes, we don't need gates and we don't need shotguns filled with buckshot.

What we need is an adequately run organisation to licence anyone permitted to run horses and hounds either to drag-hunt or fox-hunt. If breaches of protocol occur they should be punished and licences withdrawn. If individual dogs or people can be identified as at fault they should be banned from hunting. If a (hound)dog has killed or caused the distress resulting in the death of a creature not defined as prey it should be put to sleep and the owner or trainer should pay compensation both for the monetary value of the sheep/cow/dog/human/other animal but also the emotional-distress and all and any subsequent costs incurred.

In short, we need laws with teeth.

DBB

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Em, you may be at crossed purposes with Fits there I think Mod. You quoted Stiniker, Fits is I think referring to something I posted earlier as a point of information (that the hounds got into this garden via an open gate from the main road) That was most definitely not an excuse from me anyway - quite the opposite; a well drilled and managed pack should be well able to go past an open gate.

This pack weren't kept out - ask yourself who allowed that to happen?

No, I think there is some confusion here... Fits quoted Macy0161, who said that it had been stated that the gate had been left open, AND that the dog should have been kept in. Macy0161, as far as I could see, was referring to stuff said in a couple of different posts. I was referring to the latter, that the dog should have been kept in.
I hope that clarifies!

fits

Dubl07 wrote: »

That poster was spreading the blame to the owners of the pet-dog and the property on which it was killed.

Really, they weren't.
(edit.. actually forget that, I think we're all confused now)

What we need is an adequately run organisation to licence anyone permitted to run horses and hounds either to drag-hunt or fox-hunt. If breaches of protocol occur they should be punished and licences withdrawn. If individual dogs or people can be identified as at fault they should be banned from hunting. If a (hound)dog has killed or caused the distress resulting in the death of a creature not defined as prey it should be put to sleep and the owner or trainer should pay compensation both for the monetary value of the sheep/cow/dog/human/other animal but also the emotional-distress and all and any subsequent costs incurred.

In short, we need laws with teeth.

Actually I would tend to agree. I know IMFHA regulate their members very tightly but not every club is a member of that organisation.

Sulla Felix

Unfortunately it's a foreseeable consequence of keeping hounds for this purpose, just like it's a foreseeable consequence that a culture of keeping dogs as pets means there'll be a minimum number of maulings. It's just a statistical certainty because no ones control of an animal is perfect, whether it's a family pet or a working animal or hunt hounds like this.

I'm not sure that the answer is to ban the practice altogether, because if we banned everything that resulted in the occasional death of an animal or even of a person, we wouldn't have a whole lot to do.

dodderangler

Dubl07 wrote: »

If a (hound)dog has killed or caused the distress resulting in the death of a creature not defined as prey it should be put to sleep and the owner or trainer should pay compensation both for the monetary value of the sheep/cow/dog/human/other animal but also the emotional-distress and all and any subsequent costs incurred.
.

Any amount of dogs whether same breed or not is a pack and once together the dominance is formed and old instincts become stronger so most if not all animals are classed as prey to them. Wolves do it to coyotes and foxes and will not always eat them but it's a territorial thing. IMO these hounds seen this dog as either prey or looking to take over its territory. Not saying it's at all right but an animal is what it is

Imhof Tank

Dubl07 wrote: »

If a (hound)dog has killed or caused the distress resulting in the death of a creature not defined as prey it should be put to sleep and the owner or trainer should pay compensation both for the monetary value of the sheep/cow/dog/human/other animal but also the emotional-distress and all and any subsequent costs incurred.

In short, we need laws with teeth.

But sure how could you put monetary value on the emotional suffering of the pet owners in this case? Or the correct damages for the trespass that occurred?

I think what the family wants is a punitive sanction really, whereas you can be sure the hunt committee are thinking "how much to make this go away".

Dubl07

dodderangler wrote: »

Any amount of dogs whether same breed or not is a pack and once together the dominance is formed and old instincts become stronger so most if not all animals are classed as prey to them. Wolves do it to coyotes and foxes and will not always eat them but it's a territorial thing. IMO these hounds seen this dog as either prey or looking to take over its territory. Not saying it's at all right but an animal is what it is

And a responsible trainer/manager/~terminology~ will be on top of that. If he or she is incapable of control, he or she is INCAPABLE of managing the pack. The dog(s) are uncontrollable under his or her leadership. There is only one solution for the hounds once they have killed a non-prey animal. The person is incapable and needs further education before being permitted to attempt to control animals at a future date.

Dubl07

Imhof Tank wrote: »

But sure how could you put monetary value on the emotional suffering of the pet owners in this case? Or the correct damages for the trespass that occurred?

I think what the family wants is a punitive sanction really, whereas you can be sure the hunt committee are thinking "how much to make this go away".

Six months' worth of therapy for everyone in the family at once a week by €60 a pop would be my best guess.

h2005

So will the pack of hounds be put down?

Imhof Tank

Dubl07 wrote: »

Six months' worth of therapy for everyone in the family at once a week by €60 a pop would be my best guess.

Well I can assure you if that's all it would take they could have a cheque dropped down to the house tonight.

My impression is that the family want a head on a skewer so to speak. Its obvious from the FB page that they are very organised and will be pushing for a prosecution.

fits

I would guess that the ringleaders already have been put down. But that's just a guess.
Not necessary to put down the whole pack in this situation. It was probably young inexperienced hounds that attacked.

Dubl07

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Well I can assure you if that's all it would take they could have a cheque dropped down to the house tonight.

My impression is that the family want a head on a skewer so to speak. Its obvious from the FB page that they are very organised and will be pushing for a prosecution.

I'm glad to hear it. I'd generally be a supporter of hunting as part of the balance but these lads have been booted off Kilruddery for a previous incident with a pet dog. No control? No riding.

fits

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Well I can assure you if that's all it would take they could have a cheque dropped down to the house tonight.

My impression is that the family want a head on a skewer so to speak. Its obvious from the FB page that they are very organised and will be pushing for a prosecution.

Have they posted on FB since yesterday? I thought they had gone silent.

DBB

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Unfortunately it's a foreseeable consequence of keeping hounds for this purpose, just like it's a foreseeable consequence that a culture of keeping dogs as pets means there'll be a minimum number of maulings.

To simply excuse this, it similar incidents as an "unfortunate consequence", or "one of those things", just is not good enough.
Every vaguely-risky activity is subject to a Risk Assessment, which is meant to be carried out by someone trained to do so. A Risk Assessment allows for measures and protocols to be developed in order to reduce the risks.
In the case of a hunt, one simple but critical measure includes informing the residents of an area to keep their vulnerable animals in. Just in case.
According to reports of this incident, this was not done, and a little dog and her family paid the price.
Yes, dogs will be dogs, but this is in no way an acceptable excuse to allow them to do what they want.

Imhof Tank

fits wrote: »

Have they posted on FB since yesterday? I thought they had gone silent.

No there is a petition up now and a request for supporters to contact local TDs etc. They say they have reported to the guards and are taking a civil claim as well.

Also an album of photos of the victim Isabelle.

h2005

fits wrote: »

I would guess that the ringleaders already have been put down. But that's just a guess.
Not necessary to put down the whole pack in this situation. It was probably young inexperienced hounds that attacked.

Sad that it`s the hounds who have to suffer the consequences for this.

DBB

dodderangler wrote: »

Any amount of dogs whether same breed or not is a pack and once together the dominance is formed and old instincts become stronger so most if not all animals are classed as prey to them. Wolves do it to coyotes and foxes and will not always eat them but it's a territorial thing. IMO these hounds seen this dog as either prey or looking to take over its territory. Not saying it's at all right but an animal is what it is

No harm to you dodderangler, but those bits you wrote that I've bolded need to be challenged, because they are so, so far off the mark.... I've read some pretty shocking stuff in this thread, but your take on what may have caused this incident made my jaw hit the floor!
Dominance. The non-existant explanation for all inappropriate dog behaviours!

Imhof Tank

Dubl07 wrote: »

I'm glad to hear it. I'd generally be a supporter of hunting as part of the balance but these lads have been booted off Kilruddery for a previous incident with a pet dog. No control? No riding.

Totally different team involved and the Kilruddery incident was different in that it was in the middle of hunt country with the landowner walking her dog around having invited the hunt through the place at that exact time.

The weekend was a completely different scenario.

fits

h2005 wrote: »

Sad that it`s the hounds who have to suffer the consequences for this.

It is.