Dog bite today

martin101

jaxxx wrote: »

Are dobermans not on that special breed list that need to be restrained at all times in when in public?

Yeah they are. I read that they should be on a strong leash and muzzled at all times. This dog was running free without a muzzle.

jaxxx

martin101 wrote: »

Yeah they are. I read that they should be on a strong leash and muzzled at all times. This dog was running free without a muzzle.

Copied this from online:


S.I. No. 442/1998 - Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998



5 Leashing and Muzzling
5. (1) This article shall apply to every:—


(a) American Pit Bull Terrier,


(b) Bull Mastiff,


(c) Doberman Pinscher,


(d) English Bull Terrier,


(e) German Shepherd (Alsatian),


(f) Japanese Akita,


(g) Japanese Tosa,


(h) Rhodesian Ridgeback,


(i) Rottweiler,


(j) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and


to every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog), and to every other strain or cross of every breed or type of dog described in this article.


(2) A person shall not permit a dog to which this article applies to be in a public place unless such dog is:—


(i) securely muzzled; and


(ii) being led by a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length, by a person over the age of sixteen years who is capable of controlling the said dog.

martin101

Yeah that's what I seen too. I can't believe they had it off the lead when it's breed that should be on one at all times and muzzled. I have my Yorkie on a lead at all times. Can never be too careful.

2Mad2BeMad

I was bit by a dog before.
It was a medium sized dog not sure of the breed.
He was in the middle of a busy road at night he was sniffing something in the middle of the road and no matter how much I beeped him to move off he ignored it.

I stupidly got out of my car and went to pick up the dog and move them ( I certainly wasn't thinking what made me do it)
Anyhow he bit me and rightly so and it was a small break in the skin. Very little blood think it was just a defensive bite but my god the pain lasted for a few days. Certainly thought me a lesson.
Couldn't imagine been bit by a bigger dog looking to attack you.

Obviously I never looked for the owner to sue but if it was in this instance I definitely would.
The owners of this dog are lucky they it attacked you and not your baby. Fair play for showing restraint while most likely been in shock.

martin101

To be honest I just wanted to keep my baby and my dog safe. I was in pain/shock so I didn't say much to them. I just said leave me alone. I think when the dog bit me I roared out F##K . But now that it's 12 hours after the incident I'm angry that I didn't go mad at them but it's all well and good saying that now. I do remember now them asking me to come into their house for a cup of tea. And me just saying no leave me alone, while I was doubled up crouched down

Panthro

That was incredibly nieve and irresponsible of them. They haven't a clue. Dog not doing that ever before is no excuse.
Report it.

jaxxx

Panthro wrote: »

That was incredibly nieve and irresponsible of them. They haven't a clue. Dog not doing that ever before is no excuse.
Report it.

Having a dog is a huge responsibility, and not just about the care of the dog itself. It doesn't matter what breed of dog, or how big or small it is, all dogs have the potential to be dangerous. And if the people here can't be bothered to even leash their doberman while out in public let alone have it muzzled, then they shouldn't be allowed to have dogs IMHO.

Irish_peppa

A week ago i was walking through local park and this couple with quite a large alsation were coming towards me. I really didnt think much of it, as im not really scared of dogs. In any event just as I passed them completely without notice the dog lunged his neck sideways at me and grabbed my wrist, LUCKILY he got hold of the open cuff off my jacket. The couple just said "oh sorry about that" and quickly pulled him away and also fairly quickly walked away from me. Not even a question of did he bite me or was I ok. And before you ask he wasnt muzzled. I only googled after he should have been muzzled if i had known I certainly would of gave them a good talking too. Also my jacket has two incisor holes on it now :mad: What gave me a fright was the speed the dog just went from quietly walking to trying to bite my arm. I made no sudden moves at all or didnt stray into their paths in fact I gave them a bit more birth to get by because of the dog

jaxxx

jaxxx wrote: »

Are dobermans not on that special breed list that need to be restrained at all times when in public (do they need to be muzzled too)?

Some of the scum I know will get a different breed put on the dog licence so it "doesn't have to be muzzled"

spurious

Dog owner myself, but a dog out of control and attacking a person with a child is game over I'm afraid.

It's sad, because it is absolutely the fault of the owners (for so many reasons) but the dog is not safe around people.

I suspect suing them wouldn't make a difference to the future behaviour of the sort of people who do not comply with even basic rules regarding dog ownership, though it might soften their cough if they were out a few bob too.

I hope your leg heals easily. Watch out for infection.

DBB

BrownFinger wrote: »

Some of the scum I know will get a different breed put on the dog licence so it "doesn't have to be muzzled"

They can put what they like on their license. People get caught by being stopped checked by the dog warden. If the dog warden sees them out and about with a listed breed that isn't on-lead or effectively muzzled, they're likely to get a fine or court. What's written on the license is immaterial.

alias no.9

I don't like to see any animal put down but there might not be any other option unless the dog could be rehomed with someone with a track record of looking after a similar breed of dog properly.

More important than any civil case is that the current owners face prosecution for failing to control their dog, hopefully resulting in some kind of lengthy prohibition, ideally lifetime, on them being allowed to own any dog.

SusieBlue

Agree with the above. Owners are clearly incredibly irresponsible and it could be a child or another innocent dog next time.
At the very minimum your medical costs should be covered by them too, why should you be out of pocket because of their stupidity?

Feel sorry for both OP and the doberman. There is little else that can be done other than for him to be PTS and that's no ones fault but his owners. Irresponsible owners boil my blood.

martin101

The thing is I've seen this Doberman before with its owner. And he's forever smacking it on the nose. But this was the first time I seen it off the lead and sure enough I got bitten. Didn't sleep much last night due to pain and anger. And also thinking of the what ifs. That what makes me even more annoyed. You go out on a Thursday morning with a buggy to get your child asleep for a little nap, last thing you expect is a dog attack

Tazzimus

People like them are the reason Doberman have a bad rep and we have a dangerous dog list.
Unless the dog can be re-homed with someone who can actually control a large dog and train it, it'll probably be put to sleep unfortunately.

If trained properly (like any dog) they can be an absolute teddy bear.

Owners should definitely be prosecuted as well and banned from owning animals as they clearly can't/won't train them.

pinktoe

It seems a lot of owners are too lazy to walk their dog and just let them off. There should be more of a clamp down on this.

Another thing that is annoying is when you have your dog muzzled and on a lead, some jack@+s, with his restricted breed, comes up to you and says if it needs a muzzle it not trained properly or should be put down..... It has happened a good few times with my GSD.

There should be a competence test to see if you can actually own a dog.

OP was it a built up area or in the countryside not that matters either way, just curious? Do people actually think they can run faster than their dog?

martin101

pinktoe wrote: »

It seems a lot of owners are too lazy to walk their dog and just let them off. There should be more of a clamp down on this.

Another thing that is annoying is when you have your dog muzzled and on a lead, some jack@+s, with his restricted breed, comes up to you and says if it needs a muzzle it not trained properly or should be put down..... It has happened a good few times with my GSD.

There should be a competence test to see if you can actually own a dog.

OP was it a built up area or in the countryside not that matters either way, just curious? Do people actually think they can run faster than their dog?

No it happened me in an estate. Many kids in the estate too but it was at 10 am yesterday morning so most would be in school. Not that it matters, my child was with me and he's under 2. Loads of toddlers in the estate also. It's a fairly young estate.

pinktoe

The dog needs to be taken asap. Absolute stupidity from the owners. While it shouldnt be free roaming any where, an estate is just beyond ignorant.

Imagine the damage that would be done to a kid.

Fair play for protecting your dog, some people would have froze with fear and your dog would have been dead.

Tazzimus

pinktoe wrote: »

It seems a lot of owners are too lazy to walk their dog and just let them off. There should be more of a clamp down on this

See this every time we're out walking our Doberman, there's usually a scramble to get the dog back and a lead on it when they see us, mind. Not that our dog so much as even looks at the other dog, she's more interested in the walk itself, or looking for a rub.

Lots of people shouldn't have dogs, as they're not willing to train them or exercise them properly. I feel bad if we can't get out for an evening if it's lashing rain.

The law needs to be changed to remove all ambiguity. No more of this “under effective control” stuff which is wide open to interpretation. The law should say a dog out in public must be on a lead at all times and certain does on a short lead a muzzled. Any dog off the lead the owner is fined and persistent offenders have their dog removed from them.

Would sort out a lot of the crap that goes on with dogs off the lad and biting people.

Tiddlypeeps

Esperanza Hallowed Munitions wrote: »

The law needs to be changed to remove all ambiguity. No more of this “under effective control” stuff which is wide open to interpretation. The law should say a dog out in public must be on a lead at all times and certain does on a short lead a muzzled. Any dog off the lead the owner is fined and persistent offenders have their dog removed from them.

Would sort out a lot of the crap that goes on with dogs off the lad and biting people.

The dog in the OP is already legally required to be muzzled and on a short leash. What makes you think any change in regulation would have made a difference?

martin101

I got a call from the guard who took my statement and he called to the house of the people who own the Doberman. They didn't answer and he's trying again tomorrow. He also told me to contact the dog warden too.

DJIMI TRARORE

Op, I believe u completely, as a milkman I'm well used to getting nibbled at, bar 1 that cut my knee open, by sticking his head thru a gate while I was getting paid. Not as common as it use to be, but most people keep them under. control. Any chance of pic, I'm a morbid bstard

MayoSalmon

DJIMI TRARORE wrote: »

Op, I believe u completely, as a milkman I'm well used to getting nibbled at, bar 1 that cut my knee open, by sticking his head thru a gate while I was getting paid. Not as common as it use to be, but most people keep them under. control. Any chance of pic, I'm a morbid bstard

:D Can't wait to see this

martin101

No I'm not sending a pic. most of it is my backside with is black and blue and a big cut just at the top of my leg and nobody needs to see that. Apart from my solicitor if I take it that far.

martin101

Could anyone tell me, what will the dog warden do now? The guard said I should contact them and the dog warden will decide an outcome.

DBB

martin101 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me, what will the dog warden do now? The guard said I should contact them and the dog warden will decide an outcome.

It might depend on the warden, but generally they will visit the owner, and if so I'd guess at a very minimum, the owner will be fined for not having the dog on a lead/muzzled. At a minimum.
What further measures the warden may carry out relating to the bite itself is a bit up on the air, as it often depends on how sympathetic (or not) the warden is to the owners' defence. It's reasonable to assume that the warden's sympathies diminish the more damage is done. It also depends on how much you push for action to be taken. Often, if the dog hasn't done much harm, the owners might be instructed to seek behavioural assessment for the dog, with subsequent behavioural rehabilitation if necessary or apt, and they will no doubt be warned that they must take steps ensure it can't happen again.
However, yours is a more serious case, going by your description of your injuries. I would not be surprised if the warden leans pretty hard on the owners to have the dog pts. If the owners refuse this step, the warden may seize the dog, pending a court case in which the judge will rule on the fate of the dog, during which time various evidence-gathering can be done by either side, including eg vet reports and behavioural reports, whilst the dog is "in custody'".
I hope this helps you to understand the process. Sorry it's a bit vague in places as there are a few "it all depends" scenarios.

the_syco

kenmm wrote: »

I am not doubting you as such or victim blaming or anything, but could anything you have done gave the impression to the dog that you were initiating play etc?

If the dog bites if it thought the OP was playing, another reason for the dog to be put down. I love dogs, but this dog seems to be have been programmed to hurt people.

martin101 wrote: »

I don't care about sueing or anything like that.

Ask the Gardai and/or dog warden about having them banned from having any animals.

Tazzimus

the_syco wrote: »

Ask the Gardai and/or dog warden about having them banned from having any animals.

This is a good option to go for regardless as they're clearly incapable of proper ownership of a pet.
They don't deserve to have another dog possibly be pts due to their incompetence.

martin101

I got a call for the guard this evening. The couple made contact with the station and told them they will give a statement on Tuesday. They both said they didn't see the incident but they don't deny that it didn't happen. And if it fact it turns out that it happened they are willing to proceed with any outcome. The lady did see it happen because she told her husband that the dog bit me as I was crouched over in pain. But I suppose they want to protect the dog. I was asked to send on my injuries that I photographed too. If they didn't see the incident they are admitting that the dog was off the leash as the very least.

MissDisaster

While I love animals, I tend to get super annoyed when people lump all dogs listed under the Dangerous Breed act as uncontrollable and vicious. I have a fostered Jack russell that I don't like mixing with other dogs (as he's a bit of a c**t and is very grisly and barks aggressively at larger dogs.) while my neighbor has two Ridgebacks that are impeccably trained to a tee. Its all about the person training then rather than the breed. Take poor pitbulls for instance, they were originally bred as Nanny dogs to help mind and protect children. Ask anyone who has one and they'll tell you they love nothing more than cuddles and kisses with anybody who will show them affection. Due to common drug dealers and general wannabe thugs owning them as a status symbol they now have a reputation for being vicious attack dogs.

It seems the op has three main choices of paths to take here..

1. Go all out, sure the owners to hell and back and demand the dog be pts.

2. Request the medical bills be covered by the owners and the dog attend mandatory training and to be muzzled and leashed at all times.

3. Do nothing.

Now while option 2 seems like the best all round where the dog isn't pts its highly unrealistic to expect the owners to comply. They could be lovely people just worried about losing their pet. (Even if they were idiots to have it unleashed and unmuzzled in the first place.) or they could just be absolute chav's who don't give a rats arse.

martin101

If I could I'd love to get the dog taken away from them and rehomed. I'm a huge dog lover and even though I'm in a fair amount of pain and my baby or my own dog could of been on the end of that bite. I can't help but feel bad for the dog if it was to be pts. The perfect outcome would be my medical bill paid for, the dog to be rehomed to a loving owner and that couple to receive a big fine.

Doctors room ghost

martin101 wrote: »

I got a call for the guard this evening. The couple made contact with the station and told them they will give a statement on Tuesday. They both said they didn't see the incident but they don't deny that it didn't happen. And if it fact it turns out that it happened they are willing to proceed with any outcome. The lady did see it happen because she told her husband that the dog bit me as I was crouched over in pain. But I suppose they want to protect the dog. I was asked to send on my injuries that I photographed too. If they didn't see the incident they are admitting that the dog was off the leash as the very least.

They’re not protecting the dog.theyre protecting their wallets.chances are that dog has since been sold on or rehomed.keep an eye on done deal for it.
They’ll be moving that dog on fast with the old haven’t time with work excuse

martin101

I don't know if I'm being too soft but a part of me will feel bad if the dog is pts. But as my wife said what if the next person or dog doesn't get away as lightly as I did. Not that I got away too lightly as I'm off work for a week due to this. But in the grand scheme of things I did. What if the Doberman had of got to my dog or had of got to my baby who was in the buggy at the time. I'll just have to wait and see what is said at their statement on Tuesday. The guard said he will be in touch with me then.

ganmo

MissDisaster wrote: »

While I love animals, I tend to get super annoyed when people lump all dogs listed under the Dangerous Breed act as uncontrollable and vicious. I have a fostered Jack russell that I don't like mixing with other dogs (as he's a bit of a c**t and is very grisly and barks aggressively at larger dogs.) while my neighbor has two Ridgebacks that are impeccably trained to a tee. Its all about the person training then rather than the breed. Take poor pitbulls for instance, they were originally bred as Nanny dogs to help mind and protect children. Ask anyone who has one and they'll tell you they love nothing more than cuddles and kisses with anybody who will show them affection. Due to common drug dealers and general wannabe thugs owning them as a status symbol they now have a reputation for being vicious attack dogs.

It seems the op has three main choices of paths to take here..

1. Go all out, sure the owners to hell and back and demand the dog be pts.

2. Request the medical bills be covered by the owners and the dog attend mandatory training and to be muzzled and leashed at all times.

3. Do nothing.

Now while option 2 seems like the best all round where the dog isn't pts its highly unrealistic to expect the owners to comply. They could be lovely people just worried about losing their pet. (Even if they were idiots to have it unleashed and unmuzzled in the first place.) or they could just be absolute chav's who don't give a rats arse.

There is another option,
Push for the owners to get prosecuted and leave the rest to the courts

DBB

Tazzimus wrote: »

This is a good option to go for regardless as they're clearly incapable of proper ownership of a pet.
They don't deserve to have another dog possibly be pts due to their incompetence.

There is no provision in the dog control legislation that gives a judge the power to prevent an owner from owning a dog again.
There is provision for owners to be banned from keeping animals under the Animal Welfare Act, but that does not apply in this case.

MayoSalmon

MissDisaster wrote: »

While I love animals, I tend to get super annoyed when people lump all dogs listed under the Dangerous Breed act as uncontrollable and vicious. I have a fostered Jack russell that I don't like mixing with other dogs (as he's a bit of a c**t and is very grisly and barks aggressively at larger dogs.) while my neighbor has two Ridgebacks that are impeccably trained to a tee. Its all about the person training then rather than the breed. Take poor pitbulls for instance, they were originally bred as Nanny dogs to help mind and protect children. Ask anyone who has one and they'll tell you they love nothing more than cuddles and kisses with anybody who will show them affection. Due to common drug dealers and general wannabe thugs owning them as a status symbol they now have a reputation for being vicious attack dogs.

It seems the op has three main choices of paths to take here..

1. Go all out, sure the owners to hell and back and demand the dog be pts.

2. Request the medical bills be covered by the owners and the dog attend mandatory training and to be muzzled and leashed at all times.

3. Do nothing.

Now while option 2 seems like the best all round where the dog isn't pts its highly unrealistic to expect the owners to comply. They could be lovely people just worried about losing their pet. (Even if they were idiots to have it unleashed and unmuzzled in the first place.) or they could just be absolute chav's who don't give a rats arse.

No dog on earth in "inherently" dangerous. Its the most ignorant ****e you could ever think of

Graces7

martin101 wrote: »

I don't know if I'm being too soft but a part of me will feel bad if the dog is pts. But as my wife said what if the next person or dog doesn't get away as lightly as I did. Not that I got away too lightly as I'm off work for a week due to this. But in the grand scheme of things I did. What if the Doberman had of got to my dog or had of got to my baby who was in the buggy at the time. I'll just have to wait and see what is said at their statement on Tuesday. The guard said he will be in touch with me then.

Be at peace; the gardai and dog warden will sort it? Just get well now. It is in official hands. That was a terrible shock you had and you need to heal .

Graces7

Would value an update? Hoping all is well?

amadangomor

MissDisaster wrote: »

While I love animals, I tend to get super annoyed when people lump all dogs listed under the Dangerous Breed act as uncontrollable and vicious. I have a fostered Jack russell that I don't like mixing with other dogs (as he's a bit of a c**t and is very grisly and barks aggressively at larger dogs.) while my neighbor has two Ridgebacks that are impeccably trained to a tee. Its all about the person training then rather than the breed. Take poor pitbulls for instance, they were originally bred as Nanny dogs to help mind and protect children. Ask anyone who has one and they'll tell you they love nothing more than cuddles and kisses with anybody who will show them affection. Due to common drug dealers and general wannabe thugs owning them as a status symbol they now have a reputation for being vicious attack dogs.

It seems the op has three main choices of paths to take here..

1. Go all out, sure the owners to hell and back and demand the dog be pts.

2. Request the medical bills be covered by the owners and the dog attend mandatory training and to be muzzled and leashed at all times.

3. Do nothing.

Now while option 2 seems like the best all round where the dog isn't pts its highly unrealistic to expect the owners to comply. They could be lovely people just worried about losing their pet. (Even if they were idiots to have it unleashed and unmuzzled in the first place.) or they could just be absolute chav's who don't give a rats arse.

It's as much about the breeds ability to do damage as their temperament. That is why Staffies are included on the list. Most are placid but if one wasn't it has a hugely powerful bite and has a latching on instinct. A Jack Russell may be aggressive but couldn't do anywhere near as much damage

frillyleaf

martin101 wrote: »

The thing is I've seen this Doberman before with its owner. And he's forever smacking it on the nose. But this was the first time I seen it off the lead and sure enough I got bitten. Didn't sleep much last night due to pain and anger. And also thinking of the what ifs. That what makes me even more annoyed. You go out on a Thursday morning with a buggy to get your child asleep for a little nap, last thing you expect is a dog attack

Sorry to hear this happened op. Sounds like owners are completely irresponsible. Them smacking and using pain makes an animal very fearful which can no doubt result in “unprovoked” attacks like this. I wonder do they use shock collar / chock chain and apply pain to it. Poor dog.

frillyleaf

amadangomor wrote: »

It's as much about the breeds ability to do damage as their temperament. That is why Staffies are included on the list. Most are placid but if one wasn't it has a hugely powerful bite and has a latching on instinct. A Jack Russell may be aggressive but couldn't do anywhere near as much damage

Damage is relative to size of person the dog attacks. Even a Jack Russel can cause serious injury or worse to a small child or baby. I think a huge issue is people don’t realise this

amadangomor

frillyleaf wrote: »

Damage is relative to size of person the dog attacks. Even a Jack Russel can cause serious injury or worse to a small child or baby. I think a huge issue is people don’t realise this

I get you but I was talking about why the legislation was in place. A Jack Russell could give a nasty bite or maybe kill a baby but still does not have the enormous jaw strength and latching ability of the breeds specifically bred for baiting bulls.

DBB

If I may, can I dispel the myth that bull breeds, or any breed for that matter, has a "latching" mechanism? It's a small detail, in the big scheme of things, but it is one of many myths that bull breeds don't deserve!

Now, when it comes to breeds, there's a bit of research done on breeds, bites, and legislation. One of the finest papers produced so far was completed by Irish researchers, using Irish statistics on dog bites. Some seriously interesting reading, which I'd hope will help convince people that attaching labels to certain breeds is a really risky, dangerous thing to do. This supports research carried out in other jurisdictions, which in some cases has prompted governments to abolish breed specific legislation, replacing it with legislation that places the onus of responsibility on the owner, regardless of the breed of their dog.
Enjoy the read!
https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1

Still waters

DBB wrote: »

If I may, can I dispel the myth that bull breeds, or any breed for that matter, has a "latching" mechanism? It's a small detail, in the big scheme of things, but it is one of many myths that bull breeds don't deserve!

Now, when it comes to breeds, there's a bit of research done on breeds, bites, and legislation. One of the finest papers produced so far was completed by Irish researchers, using Irish statistics on dog bites. Some seriously interesting reading, which I'd hope will help convince people that attaching labels to certain breeds is a really risky, dangerous thing to do. This supports research carried out in other jurisdictions, which in some cases has prompted governments to abolish breed specific legislation, replacing it with legislation that places the onus of responsibility on the owner, regardless of the breed of their dog.
Enjoy the read!
https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1

Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr

Tazzimus

Still waters wrote: »

Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr

Just read the conclusion paragraph?

DBB

Still waters wrote: »

Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr

It is synopsised in the first 3 paragraphs in the link
The basic message is that by listing specific breeds of dog as being more "dangerous" than other breeds, as our legislation does, it results in people being lulled into the false assumption that non-listed breeds must be safer.
Secondly, it finds that the listed breeds were actually involved in fewer bite incidents than non-listed breeds.
Thirdly, it finds that listed breeds do not actually cause more damage when they bite than non-listed breeds do.
Fourthly, it finds that people are more likely to report a bite if it involves a listed breed, than if it's not a listed breed.

AulWan

Havent read the entire thread, but its extremely unusual for any dog to just randomly run up to someone and bite them.

Something in the OPs behaviour triggered that reaction from the dog.

In saying that, it should have been on a lead so fault lies with the owners. I don't agree with muzzling dogs.

The owners should pay the medical bills, and possibly a fine would make them reconsider keeping their dog on a lead in an estate.

I don't agree the dog should lose its life because of its owner's error.

Still waters

Tazzimus wrote: »

Just read the conclusion paragraph?

Just mind your own fcukin business

Still waters

DBB wrote: »

It is synopsised in the first 3 paragraphs in the link
The basic message is that by listing specific breeds of dog as being more "dangerous" than other breeds, as our legislation does, it results in people being lulled into the false assumption that non-listed breeds must be safer.
Secondly, it finds that the listed breeds were actually involved in fewer bite incidents than non-listed breeds.
Thirdly, it finds that listed breeds do not actually cause more damage when they bite than non-listed breeds do.
Fourthly, it finds that people are more likely to report a bite if it involves a listed breed, than if it's not a listed breed.

Thank you