Horrible dog attack - are further laws required?

doubter

dodderangler wrote: »

Jesus would you not just get a snake??
Won't seem as crazy than someone with 8 cats

Try 25.

A child has been hurt. A dog has been killed.
Who's responsible?
Only one: The owner.
Imho, dogs should not allowed out of their own environment without supervision.
That supervision responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner.
So, if the owner fails this responsibility, said owner should be prosecuted to the letter of the law for causing bodily harm
Next to that, a life time ban on keeping dogs.
The only issue I have with the article is that it states it was a husky.
Husky's are the worst guard dogs in the world-they love everyone.
They do have a very high prey drive..still, I have my doubts this was a husky.

Pretzill

When I was a kid dog bites were a summer occurence in the neighbourhood. Then there seemed to be far more dogs left to wander the streets. In the main it wasn't those that attacked though rather the percieved attackers were dogs who lived behind the high walls - the posh houses - the ones that grabbed your leg when you were fleeing the scene after nicking an orchard. And mostly those dogs let out by mistake in gated houses - watch dogs, the size of some of the breeds striking terror into us.

I was bitten by a gsd when I was about 10 - I knew the dog he was my friends but he was dragged up had been taught to attack on command and was set on me as a 'joke' by her brother. It's a sore thing been bitten by a dog even though the dog was called off before he did real physical damage - for years I had a phobia of the breed.

My own dog defended me against an attack by three gaurd dogs and was injured himself.

Every dog has the potential to bite - even those highly trained, well cared for, fenced in and on lead. Ask a postman.
But we were stupid as children too, relaxed around the majority of street strays and entering gardens to retrieve footballs etc.

Dogs have teeth. Big sharp ones. For all the bad owners there are also some parents who need to teach their children not to approach dogs - even ones they know - without adult supervision. It's almost like instilling a fear, a note to be wary - not to trust. Unfortunately another way society has changed.


As long as children push boundaries and dogs are left unsupervised there will be stitches, bruises, and animals pts.

Nody

doubter wrote: »

Try 25.

A child has been hurt. A dog has been killed.
Who's responsible?
Only one: The owner.
Imho, dogs should not allowed out of their own environment without supervision.
That supervision responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner.

Sorry but I'm going have to disagree; part of the responsibility rests on the child's parents. It is their responsibility to keep an eye on their offspawn and what it's up to (it's called parenthood). If the child had run out onto a highway and got clipped would you say it's only the driver's fault? Or if he ate poison put out for rats? Oh it's the guy who put out the poison who's 100% responsible. Or threw stones through a window? Oh it's the person who had windows with stones that is responsible for him breaking their windows.

The fact is the child was not supervised, was sitting on a wall (trespassing already at this point), then jumped down into a private garden and then got bitten. Where was the parent to prevent this in the first place by removing them from the wall? This does not make the dog owner guiltless but they are not the only one to share guilt in what happened.

OldNotWIse

doubter wrote: »

Try 25.

A child has been hurt. A dog has been killed.
Who's responsible?
Only one: The owner.
Imho, dogs should not allowed out of their own environment without supervision.
That supervision responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner.
So, if the owner fails this responsibility, said owner should be prosecuted to the letter of the law for causing bodily harm
Next to that, a life time ban on keeping dogs.
The only issue I have with the article is that it states it was a husky.
Husky's are the worst guard dogs in the world-they love everyone.
They do have a very high prey drive..still, I have my doubts this was a husky.

Know what might be a good idea too, if owners had to insure their dogs for damage caused by them?

doubter

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but I'm going have to disagree; part of the responsibility rests on the child's parents. It is their responsibility to keep an eye on their offspawn and what it's up to (it's called parenthood). If the child had run out onto a highway and got clipped would you say it's only the driver's fault? Or if he ate poison put out for rats? Oh it's the guy who put out the poison who's 100% responsible. Or threw stones through a window? Oh it's the person who had windows with stones that is responsible for him breaking their windows.

The fact is the child was not supervised, was sitting on a wall (trespassing already at this point), then jumped down into a private garden and then got bitten. Where was the parent to prevent this in the first place by removing them from the wall? This does not make the dog owner guiltless but they are not the only one to share guilt in what happened.

you have a good point there, I agree.

doubter

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Know what might be a good idea too, if owners had to insure their dogs for damage caused by them?

It certainly would. I have 8 horses, and they are all insured for damage to a third party.
I do however have the notion that no insurance company will take on insuring against dog aggression...

paddysdream

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Know what might be a good idea too, if owners had to insure their dogs for damage caused by them?

As far as I am aware standard household insurance covers you for damage done by your dog.At least in the case of livestock worrying.
Its a bit of a pain getting a claim in as you usually have to have your solicitor write to the broker/company involved before anything starts.No use you just ringing up and saying Joe Bloggs dog did this or that and can II have a claim form.
Many people seem to be unaware of this fact.

muddypaws

paddysdream wrote: »

As far as I am aware standard household insurance covers you for damage done by your dog.At least in the case of livestock worrying.
Its a bit of a pain getting a claim in as you usually have to have your solicitor write to the broker/company involved before anything starts.No use you just ringing up and saying Joe Bloggs dog did this or that and can II have a claim form.
Many people seem to be unaware of this fact.

It usually doesn't cover for livestock worrying, but yes, most policies do cover you for other third party damage.

paddysdream

muddypaws wrote: »

It usually doesn't cover for livestock worrying, but yes, most policies do cover you for other third party damage.

Think it does as had 2 different people pay me for damage through their household policy due to damage done by their dogs.

Frigga_92

doubter wrote: »

Try 25.

A child has been hurt. A dog has been killed.
Who's responsible?
Only one: The owner.
Imho, dogs should not allowed out of their own environment without supervision.
That supervision responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the owner.
So, if the owner fails this responsibility, said owner should be prosecuted to the letter of the law for causing bodily harm
Next to that, a life time ban on keeping dogs.
The only issue I have with the article is that it states it was a husky.
Husky's are the worst guard dogs in the world-they love everyone.
They do have a very high prey drive..still, I have my doubts this was a husky.

According to an earlier poster who listened to the mother's radio interview, the child trespassed on a stranger's property and that is how he came into contact with the dog.

DBB

paddysdream wrote: »

Think it does as had 2 different people pay me for damage through their household policy due to damage done by their dogs.

Yes indeed, I know several farmers, and of more, who were paid for damage to their livestock via the owners' home insurance policy.
Dog insurance policies do cover for damage to 3rd parties howsoever that damage is caused, but in the case of any aggression, I wouldn't fancy anyone's chances of having more than one claim paid up, as aggression would be deemed a pre-existing behavioural problem.

paddysdream

DBB wrote: »

Yes indeed, I know several farmers, and of more, who were paid for damage to their livestock via the owners' home insurance policy.
Dog insurance policies do cover for damage to 3rd parties howsoever that damage is caused, but in the case of any aggression, I wouldn't fancy anyone's chances of having more than one claim paid up, as aggression would be deemed a pre-existing behavioural problem.

To be honest if I claim for dog damage, then due to the fact that the said dog is usually lying dead in my field the chances of it being responsible for another claim are negligible.

Afraid I see dogs given a second chance but usually they will attack again.
Many years ago used to warn people and tell them if they paid up then no more action would be taken against the dog in question.
Have learnt the hard way that the policy is shoot on sight and then go look for the owner.

But anyways all my problems,expensive though they may be,are of less importance than a person being mauled.

DBB

paddysdream wrote: »

To be honest if I claim for dog damage, then due to the fact that the said dog is usually lying dead in my field the chances of it being responsible for another claim are negligible.

Sorry paddysdream, I may not have made it clear in my post... I meant that specific dog insurance policies do cover against aggression (someone had said they don't), but if a claim is made against that dog for anything related to aggression, any harm caused by aggression that occurs after that claim is unlikely to be covered any more. Your solution is a final one too, but my point is that insurance companies don't cover pre-existing behavioural problems either.
I absolutely understand the position farmers are in when it comes to dogs worrying livestock, and have every sympathy for ye! In fairness, I do know some owners who went through hell and high water to make sure their dogs never escaped again to be able to threaten livestock after a genuine one-off incident where the farmer was compensated.
They're probably not all that common though, and though it'd be REALLY tough to lose pet dogs due to a stupid one-off mistake (a gate left open? A storm-damaged fence?), the farmer does not have the luxury of knowing whether a dog belongs to a genuinely remorseful owner when it's running amongst his or her livestock.

doubter

paddysdream wrote: »

To be honest if I claim for dog damage, then due to the fact that the said dog is usually lying dead in my field the chances of it being responsible for another claim are negligible.

Afraid I see dogs given a second chance but usually they will attack again.
Many years ago used to warn people and tell them if they paid up then no more action would be taken against the dog in question.
Have learnt the hard way that the policy is shoot on sight and then go look for the owner.

But anyways all my problems,expensive though they may be,are of less importance than a person being mauled.

I take huge offence on that.Farmers always say the dog was worrying lifestock.Yet, the amount of times there are sheep or cattle loose on the road is without comparison.How would a farmer feel if drivers start shooting your loose lifestock on site?After all, they are posing a danger to numerous road users.Make sure you have decent fencing in place, and it keeps your cattle in and dogs out. Doesn't seem so difficult to me.
Mod, sorry for OT-rant over.

peasant

doubter wrote: »

Make sure you have decent fencing in place, and it keeps your cattle in and dogs out. Doesn't seem so difficult to me.

That's a tad naive, tbh.

Fencing that keeps cattle in doesn't keep dogs out (and vice versa)
Plus there would be the cost factor.

doubter

peasant wrote: »

That's a tad naive, tbh.

Fencing that keeps cattle in doesn't keep dogs out (and vice versa)
Plus there would be the cost factor.

of course.It's cheaper to take a life. :mad:

peasant

It would certainly be cheaper to have that dog proof fence around a standard sized back garden than several acres of pasture :pac:

Witcher

doubter wrote: »

of course.It's cheaper to take a life. :mad:

Keep your dog in check and they won't have to.

Pretzill

peasant wrote: »

That's a tad naive, tbh.

Fencing that keeps cattle in doesn't keep dogs out (and vice versa)
Plus there would be the cost factor.

Besides which as a driver you should be aware of the hazards posed by grazing animals - cattle been moved from feild to feild - sheep on commonage - horses and deer. They only pose a risk if you aren't a careful on rural roads - you just have to be aware. Dogs shouldn't be allowed roam end of...I'm so aware of that living rural because I know my guys wouldn't stand a chance if found worrying sheep - it would be heartbreaking for me and the farmer a great loss of livestock potentially.

So I agree it's naive to believe that because a sheep is out on the road he somehow contributed to a telling off by the dog or worse - the dog shouldn't be out on the road in the first place without its owner.

DBB

doubter wrote: »

I take huge offence on that.Farmers always say the dog was worrying lifestock.Yet, the amount of times there are sheep or cattle loose on the road is without comparison.How would a farmer feel if drivers start shooting your loose lifestock on site?After all, they are posing a danger to numerous road users.Make sure you have decent fencing in place, and it keeps your cattle in and dogs out. Doesn't seem so difficult to me.
Mod, sorry for OT-rant over.

In fairness doubter, livestock owners are liable for damage caused by their escaped animals.
In just the same way that dog owners are liable if their dog damages another's property.
The urgency faced by a farmer when his stock are being chased, injured and/or killed by dogs is not comparable to danger posed by livestock that have accidentally escaped out onto the road, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
I have yet to meet a farmer who doesn't remedy an escaped livestock situation immediately once the alarm is raised. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for many dog owners who often deliberately allow their dog out and about to do whatever damage they will, even denying that the dog belongs to them in some cases... if the owner can be found at all. Farmers cannot deny they own their escaped livestock.

Now with mod hat on, the argument you're presenting here is way off-topic, and for another thread.
So I'll ask for everyone to get back on-track now.
Thanks,
DBB

sparky63

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

According to an earlier poster who listened to the mother's radio interview, the child trespassed on a stranger's property and that is how he came into contact with the dog.

I listened to the interview with the mother on the radio, and whilst the mother said that the child went into the neighbours garden the word trespass was never used. The child is below 12 years of age, the age of criminal responsibility and as such cannot be charged with trespassing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html#partv-sec52

However under the Control of dogs act: (3) A person is liable in damages for any damage caused by a dog kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing thereon only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

Frigga_92

sparky63 wrote: »

I listened to the interview with the mother on the radio, and whilst the mother said that the child went into the neighbours garden the word trespass was never used. The child is below 12 years of age, the age of criminal responsibility and as such cannot be charged with trespassing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html#partv-sec52

However under the Control of dogs act: (3) A person is liable in damages for any damage caused by a dog kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing thereon only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

I didn't say the word trespass was used by the mother. I used the word trespass because IMO someone entering your property without your permission is trespassing, regardless of age.
Well aware of the law.

davidk1394

doubter wrote: »

of course.It's cheaper to take a life. :mad:

We had a dog attack in august by neighbours alsations.. killed 20 sheep... we took in turns on watching the shep.. 3 weeks later they came back to have another go.. only for a neighbour ran they would have killed more.. i faced 6 savage alsations with a lump hammer the gun was in the jeep.. i was sore furious i would have ripped a dog appart with my bare hands... i followed them back to a neighbours farm and made sure they were put down in front of me.. and then he wouldn't pay any of the vet bills disposal charges or the dead sheep... ignorance like that drives me mad.. and here is a picture of the damage a nice friendly dog can do when they get the taste for blood

sparky63

sparky63 wrote: »

However under the Control of dogs act: (3) A person is liable in damages for any damage caused by a dog kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing thereon only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

http://www.herald.ie/news/pitbull-tears-hand-off-thief-escaping-with-50k-in-cash-28005932.html

From what i know, they were trying to get this dog put down, but i never heard anything since. Maybe turned a blind eye to it.

Calhoun

Gave him a medal instead :P, but damn that article is crazy.

Sobko

God the Herald is a complete rag.

Calhoun wrote: »

Gave him a medal instead :P, but damn that article is crazy.

tk123

Superquin should send some steaks around to the dog :pac:

sillysmiles

What a terribly written article.

A source said: "His hand was literally hanging off him --

Apparently if it is "a source" there is no need for any kind of factual accuracy.

"At least these two fellas are out of action for a while now. They have only themselves to blame," a source pointed out.

Did they just stop someone on the street and ask for a comment?

Ashbx

Ugh restricted breed lists should be banned themselves!

You should take a look at this video...it might open your eyes a bit....http://vimeo.com/53622294

Unfortunately the government cant ban a certain demographic from owning dogs and we all know certain demographics gravitate to a certain type of dog. This same demographic has feral kids running about high drug abuse / crime in the area. Alot of the dog attacks come from these areas.
So all the government can do is ban the breeds that end up on these areas. But we all know that does not work either. Simply because the gardai will only deal with serious crime. Dog law is way down the list at the moment and i dont see any changes for another 20 years.