Horrible dog attack - are further laws required?

brianon

The Mustard wrote: »

The local authority deals with stray dogs. Not the guards.

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

OldNotWIse

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That there is the thing.

You mightn't think its important.

But I have to bring my kids home from the park when this happens. I cant let them run around when a dog I know nothing about is wandering around.

OldNotWise, try to see other people's point of view.

Clearly they didnt either. Sorry but when resources are scarce I would prefer that real crime (as opposed to civil disobedience) is tackled first. There are people out there suffering at the hands of criminals - try to see things from other people's point of view. There are dog wardens for a reason and this is a more appropriate method of addressing the situation.

I dont think its not important, but a bit of perspective please. Is the owner of the dog there? Why not confront the owner instead of calling the guard? It's a quicker solution. If the dog is unaccompanied, call the dog warden. That's their job.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

Pat Mustard

brianon wrote: »

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

O...K.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

O...K.

You complain about uncontrolled dogs.

Someone tells you that there is a system in place for reporting this.

You feign disbelief that this system works.

Someone suggests you try it to see.

You feign confusion.

I am unsure of the appropriate response.

Kimbot

The Mustard wrote: »

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

Its up to the general public to report stray dogs but as you say people dont bother to do it. They are the ones that kick off when something like this story happens.

brianon

The Mustard wrote: »

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

Done. Rang them there. They said I could drop a dog into them or they could let the warden know to pay the village a visit.

I'm not into picking up stray dogs into my car so I've asked them to get the warden to pay a visit. I'll see if it makes a difference.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You complain about uncontrolled dogs.

Someone tells you that there is a system in place for reporting this.

You feign disbelief that this system works.

Someone suggests you try it to see.

You feign confusion.

I am unsure of the appropriate response.

The "O...K" was in response to your tone/attitude. I rang them there.

DBB

Okay folks,
Yet another dog-attack thread is turning into a nasty, bitchy, off-topic argument.
The charter requires that posters treat each other with respect. If this thread continues on its present trajectory with people being disrespectful, disruptive and argumentative, there will be action taken.
Debate your points in a civil fashion, or don't post at all.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

The "O...K" was in response to your tone/attitude. I rang them there.

Fair enough. I dont have an attitude it was simply a suggestion. A simple one. What did they say? Incidentally, I think its better when the warden is called, even though I love dogs. It's a cruel and hard life being a stray and oftne they are better off I know most of them are pts but there is a chance of rescue I guess.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Fair enough. I dont have an attitude it was simply a suggestion. A simple one. What did they say? Incidentally, I think its better when the warden is called, even though I love dogs. It's a cruel and hard life being a stray and oftne they are better off I know most of them are pts but there is a chance of rescue I guess.

They just said I could drop the dogs in to them or they'd get the warden to visit the village. I just asked them to get the warden to visit.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

They just said I could drop the dogs in to them or they'd get the warden to visit the village. I just asked them to get the warden to visit.

Really? That's odd. Not saying I dont believe you but I would have thought they would automatically call out.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Really? That's odd. Not saying I dont believe you but I would have thought they would automatically call out.

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

Only kidding

She simply said that I could drop a dog out to them or they'd get the warden to call out. She seemed to be pushing the first option but I dunno.

borderlinemeath

As I see it there's 3 areas of fault here.

I/ The owners of the dog. Although there is no detail regarding the circumstances of the attack - whether it happened on an open green area or in a garden (all it says is that the child was visiting his grandmother), the dog wasn't under control. If it was in a garden and the child was visiting that garden there should have been supervision. If the dog was out roaming they were at fault for this too. Fault can also lie with the owners for failing to socialise the dog adequately with children when they got the dog from the breeder.

2/ If there was provocation* by the child, directly or indirectly then some of the blame must lie with the child or his parents. A 10yr old is perfectly capable of understanding right from wrong, and parents should always warn their children of the dangers of approaching dogs that are completely unknown to them. Caution should even be used with dogs that they know from outside their own home, ie if it was the grandmothers dog.

3/ The breeder if it was any use at all should have socialised the dog from the day he was born to be familiar with children of all ages. Even people who don't live with children have relatives, or friends children or even neighbourhood children should visit and mingle with pups. The more a pup knows and sees when it is in the breeders home the more confident and less likely to behave aggressively out of fear when he is confronted with something unknown to him. But it's highly likely that this dog was probably from a puppy farm or a back yard breeder. If the owners lack the responsibility for basic supervision and let it roam free, it can assumed that there was little research done on purchase.

*By provocation, the child may not have had to even touch the dog, or kick it or pull it's ears, it may have simply been in the vicinity and the dog felt threatened, or it may have kicked a ball near the dog and the dog went to take the ball, but there's plenty of scenarios whereby the dog felt threatened and the child didn't heed the warning signs. And most adults can't read the warning signals that dogs display so what hope has a 10yr old who hasn't been warned to stay away from strange dogs:(

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Only kidding

She simply said that I could drop a dog out to them or they'd get the warden to call out. She seemed to be pushing the first option but I dunno.

I dont actually get what you were kidding about so dont worry

The reason I thought it was odd is because I assumed they would need to see and verify for themselves that the dog was roaming and also, as you have pointed out, these dogs can be dangerous so encouraging people to take them and transport them there themselves...I mean, the warden is trained and equipped to carry out this function.

OldNotWIse

borderlinemeath wrote: »

As I see it there's 3 areas of fault here.

I/ The owners of the dog. Although there is no detail regarding the circumstances of the attack - whether it happened on an open green area or in a garden (all it says is that the child was visiting his grandmother), the dog wasn't under control. If it was in a garden and the child was visiting that garden there should have been supervision. If the dog was out roaming they were at fault for this too. Fault can also lie with the owners for failing to socialise the dog adequately with children when they got the dog from the breeder.

2/ If there was provocation* by the child, directly or indirectly then some of the blame must lie with the child or his parents. A 10yr old is perfectly capable of understanding right from wrong, and parents should always warn their children of the dangers of approaching dogs that are completely unknown to them. Caution should even be used with dogs that they know from outside their own home, ie if it was the grandmothers dog.

3/ The breeder if it was any use at all should have socialised the dog from the day he was born to be familiar with children of all ages. Even people who don't live with children have relatives, or friends children or even neighbourhood children should visit and mingle with pups. The more a pup knows and sees when it is in the breeders home the more confident and less likely to behave aggressively out of fear when he is confronted with something unknown to him. But it's highly likely that this dog was probably from a puppy farm or a back yard breeder. If the owners lack the responsibility for basic supervision and let it roam free, it can assumed that there was little research done on purchase.

*By provocation, the child may not have had to even touch the dog, or kick it or pull it's ears, it may have simply been in the vicinity and the dog felt threatened, or it may have kicked a ball near the dog and the dog went to take the ball, but there's plenty of scenarios whereby the dog felt threatened and the child didn't heed the warning signs. And most adults can't read the warning signals that dogs display so what hope has a 10yr old who hasn't been warned to stay away from strange dogs:(

Good points. Dont forget though that not everyone buys from breeders. Lots of people re-home rescues and their pasts can be unknown or less than perfect and this can cause behavioural problems. Not giving dog or owner an excuse for anti-social behaviour but its something to bear in mind that extra work will be required to overcome these issues.

tenifan

Twas Not wrote: »

Horrible attack by a husky, should greater penalties be introduced for owners of unmuzzled dogs off the lead that are on the restricted dogs list?

Mandatory minimum sentences for the person responsible for the dog, increased if the dog causes damage/injury/death.

Tombo2001

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Clearly they didnt either. Sorry but when resources are scarce I would prefer that real crime (as opposed to civil disobedience) is tackled first. There are people out there suffering at the hands of criminals - try to see things from other people's point of view. There are dog wardens for a reason and this is a more appropriate method of addressing the situation.

I dont think its not important, but a bit of perspective please. Is the owner of the dog there? Why not confront the owner instead of calling the guard? It's a quicker solution. If the dog is unaccompanied, call the dog warden. That's their job.

Why not confront the owner? Because its not my job to enforce the law. And because if an individual is irresponsible as a dog owner, then they may well be irresponsible in other ways.

The comment you have made above just makes my blood boil. What is the point in having laws at all if they are not going to be enforced. Obeying the law is not an 'a la carte' list.

borderlinemeath

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why not confront the owner? Because its not my job to enforce the law. And because if an individual is irresponsible as a dog owner, then they may well be irresponsible in other ways.

The comment you have made above just makes my blood boil. What is the point in having laws at all if they are not going to be enforced. Obeying the law is not an 'a la carte' list.

Hold on a second though... what is your interpretation of the law?

You said:

I rang the Gardai twice when I saw large dogs wandering around parks without leads and owners not bothered to watch them.

Were the owners there?
How do you know they weren't watching them?
Were they RB dogs or were they just large dogs? Would it have mattered if it was small dogs?
Does the park have additional local council bye laws?

A dog off lead is not breaking the law. A dog that's not under effectual control is breaking the law. For a dog to be out of control is that the owner can't control it/has no recall on the dog or has deliberately let the dog roam.

Now in saying all that what annoys me is off lead dogs where their owner is ignoring that they are making a nuisance of themselves with other dogs or annoying people. But there are also situations where people get up in arms because a dog is off lead full stop. I've had people gesture towards me on the beach from a good distance away because they aren't happy with off lead dogs, even though they are not affecting them in any way and not breaking any laws.

Tombo2001

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Hold on a second though... what is your interpretation of the law?

You said:


Were the owners there?
How do you know they weren't watching them?
Were they RB dogs or were they just large dogs? Would it have mattered if it was small dogs?
Does the park have additional local council bye laws?

A dog off lead is not breaking the law. A dog that's not under effectual control is breaking the law. For a dog to be out of control is that the owner can't control it/has no recall on the dog or has deliberately let the dog roam.

Now in saying all that what annoys me is off lead dogs where their owner is ignoring that they are making a nuisance of themselves with other dogs or annoying people. But there are also situations where people get up in arms because a dog is off lead full stop. I've had people gesture towards me on the beach from a good distance away because they aren't happy with off lead dogs, even though they are not affecting them in any way and not breaking any laws.

Yes, that is my interpretation of the law. The question then is, what is effectual control. This is a dog that has been properly trained to instantly obey the commands of its owner. I would think very few dogs have had this training, though I dont have statistics.

Regarding your last comment, that comes down to the "my dog wont do anyone any harm" view that owners take.

You know that. But the person waving at you from the other side of the beach doesnt know that.

The dog is affecting them, by making them worried.

everlast75

Couple of things here.

First and foremost - I really hope that kid makes a full recovery!

Secondly, I am the owner of two huskies, and in my experience they have never shown any aggression towards anyone, they would be absolutely useless guard dogs. I read up on the breed and understood that the eskimos kept them to keep their babies warm, by placing them in the centre of the dog while sleeping and any dogs that showed aggression were immediately put down and therefore over generations, they became very placid. That's what I know of the breed and my dogs.

And what bugs the sh*t out of me is people/articles saying that the dog was a husky - breakingnews, independent, RTE etc. Now I checked Newstalk and they say "He was playing near his grandmother's house at the time, and the husky-type dog has since been destroyed." So is it a husky or is it not. As a husky owner, I have enough difficulty getting my family and friends to interact with them (because of their size) without stories such as these. I would like the breed confirmed before naming.

I googled another story for one of the red tops from March of this year...

Headline - Husky attacks....

Article goes on to say it was an Akita!

I would also like it to be investigated as to whether there was any sign of neglect or abuse of the animal, as in England with that poor girl trapped in the back yard with the terriers.

Finally, the law states that your dogs should ALWAYS be under the control. I have mine on leads whenever they are in public because of poor recall. So the fact that they were off lead sounds like the owner didn't have a clue about the breed (if it was a husky)

gimmick

Is this just a story because the child is a child model? Seems to be mentioned more than once. And we all know how good a paper the indo is.

Twas Not

Restricted dogs found unmuzzled and off leads should be put down perhaps? May encourage adherence to the laws

DBB

Twas Not wrote: »

Restricted dogs found unmuzzled and off leads should be put down perhaps? May encourage adherence to the laws

I would suggest punishing the owners in a more direct fashion, rather than the dog having to pay with his life for its owner not using a statutory piece of gear on him.
As has already been mentioned, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the laws we have, they are plenty punitive.
But they're not effectively enforced.
So we can bring in whatever laws we like... if they're not enforced they're as good as useless.

gimmick

Twas Not wrote: »

Restricted dogs found unmuzzled and off leads should be put down perhaps? May encourage adherence to the laws

Kill the dog because of its owners stupidity? Thats not a solution anyway.

Simply it should be the same as litter/speeding on the spot fines.

DBB

A little bit more detail from the Irish Examiner.
The wee fella was petting the dog, and turned to pet another dog when the husky (assuming they're correct on the breed) attacked him then.
But no information as to who owned the dog, or who was responsible for the dog having access to the child.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-boy-needs-50-stitches-after-dog-attack-warning--graphic-images-641075.html

DBB

Twas Not wrote: »

Restricted dogs found unmuzzled and off leads should be put down perhaps? May encourage adherence to the laws

As has already been mentioned on this thread, if the dog was a Husky, as reported, the Restricted Breed legislation would have given this child zero protection, because the Husky is not a Restricted breed.

borderlinemeath

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes, that is my interpretation of the law. The question then is, what is effectual control. This is a dog that has been properly trained to instantly obey the commands of its owner. I would think very few dogs have had this training, though I dont have statistics.

Regarding your last comment, that comes down to the "my dog wont do anyone any harm" view that owners take.

You know that. But the person waving at you from the other side of the beach doesnt know that.

The dog is affecting them, by making them worried.

You didn't answer my questions though.

Were the owners there? All you have said is that it's not up to you to confront the owners, but if they are there with the dogs and the dogs are running around playing with each other and not annoying anybody else then what is the problem? You yourself have said you didn't confront the owners so you obviously didn't ask them to call their dogs back so how can you state that they were breaking the law?

boomerang

Poor little dude, those are some nasty lacerations. Really feel for him. Gotta hope he won't grow up being afraid of dogs now.