Dog bite today

DBB

Still waters wrote: »

Just mind your own fcukin business

In light of your above post, pease don't post in this thread again.
Thanks,
DBB

iwillhtfu

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

How many dog bites are actually reported/recorded though I'd say the figures would be quite low so the statistics would have a shaky base to begin with. Personally I know of 3 people bitten by dogs none reported and one poor unfortunate bitten on the face by her own dog.

DBB

iwillhtfu wrote: »

How many dog bites are actually reported/recorded though I'd say the figures would be quite low so the statistics would have a shaky base to begin with. Personally I know of 3 people bitten by dogs none reported and one poor unfortunate bitten on the face by her own dog.

140 reports of dog bites were analysed for the above paper. 100 non-listed breeds, 40 listed breeds. A figure which, according to the researchers' power analysis, surpassed statistical requirements to establish medium to large effect sizes.
Dog bite incidents that attend hospital are supposed to be recorded by the medical personnel. Whether it always or not, I don't know. One of the authors of the above paper has further research published in which he investigated the dog bite incidents presenting in Irish hospitals between 1998 and 2013, a total of 3164 hospitalisations. There's statistical power for you! In that paper, he found that the number of dog bite incidents has actually increased since the introduction of the 1998 bye-law that identified the 11 listed breeds as having to be on lead and muzzled in public.
But other than analysing reported incidents, I'm not sure how researchers would go about collecting data.

_Brian

Dog needs to be destroyed, I know people don’t want to hear that but it was an unproved attack, if the kid had gotten in the way we could be looking at a dead kid.

Tazzimus

Still waters wrote: »

Just mind your own fcukin business

Someone needs a coke and a smile..

It was summarised in the first three paragraphs if you bothered to read past the title of it, and then went into the meat of it.

Fairly sure the summary you read was longer than the conclusion paragraph.

LillySV

Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

Mod: As previously advised in the thread this poster has been permabanned. When a mod tells you not to post in a thread again it is not mearly a suggestion.

ganmo

LillySV wrote: »

Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

Dogs are not humans.
Its sentiment like yours that results in cases like ops going un reported and un prosecuted.

volchitsa

LillySV wrote: »

Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

A mistake is someone messing around and getting bitten accidentally. What the OP describes is a deliberate, unprovoked attack by a dog.

That's a dangerous dog, and while I take your point that there are some humans who are just as dangerous (not all though!) the facts are that we no longer put humans down, that we prioritise human life and safety over canine life amd that we do put dogs down.

(In some cases, fatal illnesses in particular, I think we could argue that's a kindness to dogs that we don't extend to humans)

Anyway, my point is, we don't allow dogs to go around biting random humans, and nor should we.

MissDisaster

MayoSalmon wrote: »

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

Exactly! It’s usually just an excuse for lazy training or owners who wanted a status dog more than anything.

MissDisaster

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

Definitely...I mean as much as I love animals I’d rather take my chances with a wee Jack russel than a massive dog breed.
Although if you were going off the sounds my JR makes to the postman, you’d swear he would rip him apart. (Still working on behaviour training just before anybody jumps in!)

charlietheminxx

MissDisaster wrote: »

Definitely...I mean as much as I love animals I’d rather take my chances with a wee Jack russel than a massively Staffy. The Lock Jaw they have is genuinely terrifying.

I think the lock jaw thing is inaccurate. My mam has a smaller dog and you can lift her by the toy in her mouth, such is her grip on it. My staffie mix is strong and has a big mouth, but can't grip anything like that.

the purple tin

jaxxx wrote: »

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.

I've seen heaps of g shepards and staffies out with their owners but have only ever seen one or two of them muzzled. Do the owners not know about this law or just don't care?

iwillhtfu

the purple tin wrote: »

I've seen heaps of g shepards and staffies out with their owners but have only ever seen one or two of them muzzled. Do the owners not know about this law or just don't care?

Most of them probably haven't even got a dog licence never mind knowing the laws surrounding dogs.

charlietheminxx

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Most of them probably haven't even got a dog licence never mind knowing the laws surrounding dogs.

Can I just add that it's not always this simple.

A lot of restricted breeds are the ones who end up in rehoming centres. Their level of training is variable and trying to muzzle train an older dog is very hard.

We have a dog licence and an appropriate lead (which she is always kept on) but muzzle training her was an absolute disaster which led to her hurting herself more than once, trying to get the muzzle off - so we don't muzzle her. We know it is illegal but she is always kept under our control and we don't really have any other options at the moment.

AryaStark

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Can I just add that it's not always this simple.

A lot of restricted breeds are the ones who end up in rehoming centres. Their level of training is variable and trying to muzzle train an older dog is very hard.

We have a dog licence and an appropriate lead (which she is always kept on) but muzzle training her was an absolute disaster which led to her hurting herself more than once, trying to get the muzzle off - so we don't muzzle her. We know it is illegal but she is always kept under our control and we don't really have any other options at the moment.

I have a Rottweiler cross and he is now 10 months... we have a muzzle here and have gotten him used to getting it on and left it on for about 10 minutes at a time to be sure he was comfortable with it in cases of emergency i.e at the vets

I do not make him wear it out on walks etc and I won't do it. I think the law is ridiculous. He is never of lead and we walk in places where I have never ever seen a dog warden. I hate the idea of him having to wear a muzzle when he is such a lovely pup.

I am not sure if there is a certain age where restricted breeds have to wear the muzzle... I don't want people seeing him and being afraid cause of the muzzle. It is hard enough to socialise him.

Princess Calla

AryaStark wrote: »

I do not make him wear it out on walks etc and I won't do it. I think the law is ridiculous.

He is never of lead and we walk in places where I have never ever seen a dog warden.

I hate the idea of him having to wear a muzzle when he is such a lovely pup.

I don't want people seeing him and being afraid cause of the muzzle. It is hard enough to socialise him.

There are many laws that I think are ridiculous, doesn't meant I get to go around breaking them.

It was your choice to get a big breed dog, follow the rules that go with that decision.

I've no doubt he's a gorgeous dog, but he can still get spooked. It only takes one incident and your dog will pay the ultimate price.

No one is afraid of a dog in a muzzle, they are afraid of a big breed dog without a muzzle.

The fact that the dog is hard to socialise is no one else's problem, again you chose a big breed dog.

AryaStark

Princess Calla wrote: »

There are many laws that I think are ridiculous, doesn't meant I get to go around breaking them.

It was your choice to get a big breed dog, follow the rules that go with that decision.

I've no doubt he's a gorgeous dog, but he can still get spooked. It only takes one incident and your dog will pay the ultimate price.

No one is afraid of a dog in a muzzle, they are afraid of a big breed dog without a muzzle.

The fact that the dog is hard to socialise is no one else's problem, again you chose a big breed dog.

He is on a short lead when we are out walking and will never be offlead in public... I've a big garden so he gets to run about lots there and we visit a few places where he can run off lead.

I did choose to rescue him and when I did I knew I would ignore this law... I am not going to change my mind and will not be putting a muzzle on him just because others cannot train and control their dogs. I am hoping that this law will be changed soon and then there wont be a problem. Until then I will continue to break the law.

Lady Haywire

I'm butting in on a thread *mods move at will) but thought this appropriate to share.

https://twitter.com/Jamiepenrith2/status/1230555144460341248

Princess Calla

AryaStark wrote: »

I am not going to change my mind and will not be putting a muzzle on him just because others cannot train and control their dogs.

I am hoping that this law will be changed soon and then there wont be a problem. Until then I will continue to break the law.

Other dogs is only a part of the reason for a muzzle.

It could easily be a child that spooks your dog, but then I suppose it's up to the parents to control their children.

Or maybe you could just follow the law and prevent a preventable accident.

It's nice that you have consideration for the vet (who I suspect has it as a rule) just not the general public.

AryaStark

Princess Calla wrote: »

Other dogs is only a part of the reason for a muzzle.

It could easily be a child that spooks your dog, but then I suppose it's up to the parents to control their children.

Or maybe you could just follow the law and prevent a preventable accident.

It's nice that you have consideration for the vet (who I suspect has it as a rule) just not the general public.

Actually my vet doesnt make him wear the muzzle and he has never had to wear it while there. I trained him with it incase we ever need to see a different vet or groomer.

I live in the country and walk him responsibly... he is on a short lead and walks with me. I find it interesting that he has been to puppy classes and then obedience classes with the DSPCA and they never mentioned that I should have a muzzle on him and he was allowed to take part in the classes without a muzzle.

We have also been to an open day on the DSPCA and the Pet Expo and it was never mentioned. I assumed that a dog had to be of a certain age to need the muzzle but cannot find any official information about it online.

I am not going to change the way I walk my dog or muzzle him .. there is very little chance of him being reported and if he was then I would change where I walk him.

Tazzimus

AryaStark wrote: »

Actually my vet doesnt make him wear the muzzle and he has never had to wear it while there. I trained him with it incase we ever need to see a different vet or groomer.

I live in the country and walk him responsibly... he is on a short lead and walks with me. I find it interesting that he has been to puppy classes and then obedience classes with the DSPCA and they never mentioned that I should have a muzzle on him and he was allowed to take part in the classes without a muzzle.

We have also been to an open day on the DSPCA and the Pet Expo and it was never mentioned. I assumed that a dog had to be of a certain age to need the muzzle but cannot find any official information about it online.

I am not going to change the way I walk my dog or muzzle him .. there is very little chance of him being reported and if he was then I would change where I walk him.

We don't muzzle our Doberman either as there's no actual need.
All the other small dogs we meet on walks could do with one mind, nearly had the ankles taken off me several times by some snarling, barking, little untrained ****. We have the muzzle with us all the time, but never need to use it, she pays zero attention to anyone else, or the little yappy ****s. We've spent a fortune, and continue to spend more, in obedience classes. They should be mandatory for all dogs, regardless of size.

I actually think it makes the dog look more intimidating with a muzzle, like you have no control so need to put a muzzle on.

Vet also loves to see her and never asks for a muzzle.

DBB

Lady Haywire wrote: »

I'm butting in on a thread *mods move at will) but thought this appropriate to share.

https://twitter.com/Jamiepenrith2/status/1230555144460341248

Jeepers Lady Haywire... I'm not sure are you aware of the crowd represented in that video you linked, but suffice to say, I would be strenuously advising owners not to use trainers who routinely use shock collars as their first port of call... this particular crowd are trolling positive, ethical dog trainers up and down this country right now, resolutely ignoring and refuting that dogs can be trained positively. They're setting dog training in Ireland back by decades, but refusing to engage in dialogue or to try to understand learning theory, and not a single qualification to their namein the field.
For what it's worth, I have trained many dogs not to chase livestock, without using any techniques that involve hurting/scaring/shocking/teasing a dog. Despite what the macho men with the remote controller in their hands say.

ganmo

AryaStark wrote: »

Actually my vet doesnt make him wear the muzzle and he has never had to wear it while there. I trained him with it incase we ever need to see a different vet or groomer.

I live in the country and walk him responsibly... he is on a short lead and walks with me. I find it interesting that he has been to puppy classes and then obedience classes with the DSPCA and they never mentioned that I should have a muzzle on him and he was allowed to take part in the classes without a muzzle.

We have also been to an open day on the DSPCA and the Pet Expo and it was never mentioned. I assumed that a dog had to be of a certain age to need the muzzle but cannot find any official information about it online.

I am not going to change the way I walk my dog or muzzle him .. there is very little chance of him being reported and if he was then I would change where I walk him.

So you're using other peoples non confrontation as justification for ignoring the law?

Ya cause that's how it works

AryaStark

ganmo wrote: »

So you're using other peoples non confrontation as justification for ignoring the law?

Ya cause that's how it works

I dont really want to hijack this thread and take it off topic too much.

I would trust that the DSPCA have a great understanding of dogs and know that a trained dog is better then an untrained muzzled dog. Untrained dogs can get out without their muzzle on and be a huge hazard. People who get restricted breed dogs and dont bother to train or socialize them are a huge problem.

I actually think that all dogs should have to complete basic training and socialization... and that if a dog fails then maybe look at having to be muzzled or retrained.

ganmo

AryaStark wrote: »

I dont really want to hijack this thread and take it off topic too much.

I would trust that the DSPCA have a great understanding of dogs and know that a trained dog is better then an untrained muzzled dog. Untrained dogs can get out without their muzzle on and be a huge hazard. People who get restricted breed dogs and dont bother to train or socialize them are a huge problem.

I actually think that all dogs should have to complete basic training and socialization... and that if a dog fails then maybe look at having to be muzzled or retrained.

You want to force dog owners to do more when they wont do what is already required?

Graces7

ganmo wrote: »

You want to force dog owners to do more when they wont do what is already required?

Wondering what happens if/when a dog that should be muzzled and is not is seen and challenged by a dog warden /Garda?

Princess Calla

I just think it's very strange in a thread about a dog bite from a big breed dog, that should be muzzled, we have other owners of big breed dogs stating that they will never muzzle their dog.

Even the best trained dog can lapse. It only takes one time.

The legislation is there for a reason.

charlietheminxx

Princess Calla wrote: »

I just think it's very strange in a thread about a dog bite from a big breed dog, that should be muzzled, we have other owners of big breed dogs stating that they will never muzzle their dog.

Even the best trained dog can lapse. It only takes one time.

The legislation is there for a reason.

I thought this thread was about feckless and irresponsible dog owners, who let their dog roam to the detriment of the OP.

I’d love if my dog was muzzle trained but it’s the one thing she struggles with and she’s an old girl. I don’t let her off lead, she is kept in a proper harness with a short lead at all times. I see plenty of big breed dogs unmuzzled and off lead and I do disagree with that. As much as I love my dog, I don’t take chances and I avoid other dogs when we are out (because they’re sometimes off lead or “just being friendly” while invading her space).

We’ve tried 2 types of muzzle and she had 4 months of muzzle training to no avail. So if anyone has a solution, I’d love to hear it.

garrettod

lawred2 wrote: »

Dog needs putting down and the owners restricted from dog ownership. Clearly not mature or responsible enough to own a dog.

How do you know that the dog didn't get out of an enclosed garden by accident, for example?

I wasn't there, didn't see it happen, so don't have a clue what happened, and in fairness, your in the same boat :-)

garrettod

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

Hi,

Firstly, I'm sorry to have read about what happened to you.

You mention that you've seen the dog and owner before. Mind me asking, has the owner tried to make contact with you, either directly or via the Gardai?

I would expect any reasonable dog owner to be doing their very best to try to apologise, cover medical bills and see what else they could offer to try to help improve the situation.

Sometimes, there are alternative solutions to insisting that the dog be put down, particularly if it's a first time that the dog has bitten someone. Vets will often suggest neutering a male dog for example, as part of a strategy to try to reduce the testosterone levels. Training courses with genuine, expedienced dog trainers etc are also an option and part of a solution, sometimes.

ganmo

garrettod wrote: »

How do you know that the dog didn't get out of an enclosed garden by accident, for example?

I wasn't there, didn't see it happen, so don't have a clue what happened, and in fairness, your in the same boat :-)

Owners are still responsible. The control of dogs act covers this

Graces7

garrettod wrote: »

How do you know that the dog didn't get out of an enclosed garden by accident, for example?

Still the legal responsibility of the owner as the garden should have been secure

garrettod

ganmo wrote: »

Owners are still responsible. The control of dogs act covers this

Hi,

I'm not disputing that, but there's a difference between a regular offender, someone doing something intentionally, and a once of accident etc.

My view is that you need to understand the situation, get the facts right etc, before passing sentence. Some here seem to think it's fine to just keep shouting "off with their heads" or similar, and haven't got the facts.

Bad information, or lack of all relevant information, leads to bad decisions. Good information leads to good decisions. :-)

volchitsa

ganmo wrote: »

You want to force dog owners to do more when they wont do what is already required?

I think Arya is saying that what's needed is something different, not something more.

Muzzling a dog every single time it goes out of the garden is probably as hard and certainly a lot more unpleasant than going to dog training classes once a week - we did it for two years and it was certainly enough to ensure that she wasn't going to be a danger to random people or dogs walking past her. I presume some dogs need more, but again, if it were that or a muzzle I'd be all for training. It has all sorts of advantages, IME. And I'd hate to have to muzzle her (though if it were legally required I'd do it).

ganmo

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

I'm not disputing that, but there's a difference between a regular offender, someone doing something intentionally, and a once of accident etc.

My view is that you need to understand the situation, get the facts right etc, before passing sentence. Some here seem to think it's fine to just keep shouting "off with their heads" or similar, and haven't got the facts.

Bad information, or lack of all relevant information, leads to bad decisions. Good information leads to good decisions. :-)

Intention only matters if the law says it matters

For example https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058051462/9/#post112515552

ganmo

volchitsa wrote: »

I think Arya is saying that what's needed is something different, not something more.

Muzzling a dog every single time it goes out of the garden is probably as hard and certainly a lot more unpleasant than going to dog training classes once a week - we did it for two years and it was certainly enough to ensure that she wasn't going to be a danger to random people or dogs walking past her. I presume some dogs need more, but again, if it were that or a muzzle I'd be all for training. It has all sorts of advantages, IME. And I'd hate to have to muzzle her (though if it were legally required I'd do it).

There was a consultation about reviewing the control of dogs act last year,hopefully the next government will look at the submissions

CramCycle

LillySV wrote: »

Everyone complains about the cost of insurance ... yet lots of assholes here saying u should sue straight away with little facts !!! What if your dog did the same... totally unusual for it... but it did.... would u like it if someone sued u or made u put it down??? Seriously.... look for them to cover the cost of the doctor maybe but don’t go cause the dog to be put down ... treats others as u would like them to treat u and so on

LillySV wrote: »

And what if this dog was normally 100%... and this was totally unusual for it ... seriously ... is a little bite worth causing a dog to be put down and suffering for the family it lives with

How is this a discussion. I have two dogs, I love them immensely but if they bit someone, they would have to be put down. They are well trained and obedient but if they bit someone, that's it. All the talk about suing, f*ck that sh1t. The dog needs to be euthanised, and the owners names on a register to keep an eye on. That is the end of discussion.

AryaStark

CramCycle wrote: »

How is this a discussion. I have two dogs, I love them immensely but if they bit someone, they would have to be put down. They are well trained and obedient but if they bit someone, that's it. All the talk about suing, f*ck that sh1t. The dog needs to be euthanised, and the owners names on a register to keep an eye on. That is the end of discussion.

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

Sorry about that

AryaStark wrote: »

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

And if they bit someone again, what would you do?

Graces7

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

I'm not disputing that, but there's a difference between a regular offender, someone doing something intentionally, and a once of accident etc.

My view is that you need to understand the situation, get the facts right etc, before passing sentence. Some here seem to think it's fine to just keep shouting "off with their heads" or similar, and haven't got the facts.

Bad information, or lack of all relevant information, leads to bad decisions. Good information leads to good decisions. :-)

Wondering respectfully if you read the entire thread or just the start? There were abundant facts and information about the dog and the owners lack of care. And that was a serious bite not just a nip.

Graces7

AryaStark wrote: »

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

You might not be given the choice. You are adamant re not obeying the law re muzzling. Any decision would thus not be yours. The law is there to protect the dog against any form of negligence also.

lapua20grain

AryaStark wrote: »

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

I would demand that they be put down if it was me that they attacked, this is the usual crap I hear from dog owners "oh my dog would never bite" dogs are animals simple as and anyone that thinks they have full control over them is delusional. I have seen first hand the devastating aftermath of a friendly wouldn't bite you dog on a flock of sheep they are instinctual animals with a certain amount of loyalty to the people that fed them but an animal nonetheless.

CramCycle

AryaStark wrote: »

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

Where is the line then? When does it become a vicious attack. Pretty sure mine wouldn't either but if they bit anyone in an unproviked attack, like in the OP, they would have to be put down, there are no ifs or buts.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

If the dog bit someone, bar the dog defending itself or you, the mistake may or may not be yours but it is a response it is willing to go too. I can't believe this is a discussion. I love my dogs but if either of them bit someone, it means they cannot be trusted. That is the contract we have entered into by becoming dog owners. It may be my fault, maybe I did not train them well enough but bar those two situations, there are no excuses.

borderlinemeath

CramCycle wrote: »

Where is the line then? When does it become a vicious attack. Pretty sure mine wouldn't either but if they bit anyone in an unproviked attack, like in the OP, they would have to be put down, there are no ifs or buts.


If the dog bit someone, bar the dog defending itself or you, the mistake may or may not be yours but it is a response it is willing to go too. I can't believe this is a discussion. I love my dogs but if either of them bit someone, it means they cannot be trusted. That is the contract we have entered into by becoming dog owners. It may be my fault, maybe I did not train them well enough but bar those two situations, there are no excuses.

There's an important part of training that often ends with the dog in trouble. If an owner has the dog trained to shut down their warning signals such as a bark, or a growl or even bared teeth, and when they are commanded not to exhibit their warning signals - they can go straight to bite if they are in a situation that they find too much for them. I see people all the time telling their dog to "stop" or using their name in a warning tone if the dog so much as grumbles when another dog approaches them and the dog will shut down their defences. Keep that up and they will suppress all their warning signals and what are they left with? Nothing but their bite. And then they get PTS for it.

I think a lot of owners don't really notice what they're doing when they're telling their dog to stop growling, or barking. They tend to forget that if they feel threatened enough they could resort to their only defence.

AulWan

I wouldn't just put a dog down either.

Its very, very rare for a dog to just randomly attack, unprovoked, unless there is an underlying condition.

I have owned a dog that suffered from rage syndrome, he would attack unprovoked. He was put to sleep, so its not like I'd never do it. (The person he attacked was me).

But if I owned a dog that I knew doesn't normally show signs of aggression, I'd be looking for what provoked them before jumping to ending their life, and I'd fight any demand to put them to sleep legally.

So many stories I've heard of dogs biting "unprovoked" and when you dig a little deeper you find there was something the human has done that triggered them.

Graces7

The thread reminds me of an incident when I was renting in West cork. There was, God rest him now, an old man up the lane who took an aversion. He had been using the empty house! When the gate went up?
Incident after incident. There was a long defunct r o w at the back and he once set fire to it.. nearly destroyed the power lines,
He would climb the gate or fence, then claim he had hurt himself and threaten to sue.

One day I was inside and the dogs were out in the enclosed yard. I heard barking.... and he was there. He walloped Sandy with his stick and she ran to me howling; Will never forget that sound. And never a sign of aggression from her.

Then he told my landlord my dog had bitten his ankle and he had had to go to the doctor and get an antitetanus and he would get the dog put down. NB he was wearing thick wellies and Sandy had broken teeth

I went through hell. Then he started in on something else and I called the police; made a great show of Sandy being a pure pet. Which she was.

The Gardai knew he was being aggressive and yet as he was over 80?

We have to be on our guard. And I feel for anyone in any situation where a dog is in danger

SusieBlue

AryaStark wrote: »

I don't think that either of my dogs would ever bite anybody. But if they did And it was a bite rather then vicious attack, I would not be putting either down.

The pup is so friendly and loves everyone. My husky is much more reserved and while friendly she hates people touching her head So I don't allow strangers to pet her. they are both always on lead and our garden is secure.
So if they did bite someone I would be looking into how it happened but wouldn't kill them for a terrible unforeseen mistake of mine.

It might not be your choice, though.
A friends Rottie was on lead but unmuzzled when a stranger tried to approach her, and she got spooked.
She nipped the stranger in the process, the injuries weren’t too serious but my friend offered unreserved apologies and offered to cover medical expenses etc.

She was always the most gentle, sweetest little creature, and the bite was completely out of character for her.
The man still reported the incident to the Gardaí, who got in touch with the warden, who ordered the dog be seized and PTS.

There was an option to contest the decision but it would have involved an expensive court case, and they were legally advised they were very very unlikely to win anyway as the dog was not under their control & wasn’t muzzled when the incident happened.

So really by allowing your dog to be out in public without a muzzle you are putting him in an unfair, disadvantaged situation whereby if he reacts to anything, whether it’s justified or not, he might lose his life.
I wouldn’t like to muzzle my dog but I would do so rather than run the risk that an outside influence would cause an outburst and result in them being PTS.
It just wouldn’t be worth the risk for me.

garrettod

Graces7 wrote: »

Wondering respectfully if you read the entire thread or just the start? There were abundant facts and information about the dog and the owners lack of care. And that was a serious bite not just a nip.

Hi,

Yes, I did read the entire thread.

All we know is that unfortunitely, someone has been injured by a dog having bitten them, without provocation.

People talking about taking legal action, having the dog out down etc. know no more than you and I. I was interested in finding out what the dog owners have done, or tried to do, for example - as I think that's an important factor to consider, when the injured party is trying to decide the next move

JustAThought

martin101 wrote: »

Hi, just wondering if I'm doing the right thing here and or should I take it further. I was off work today and walking my Yorkshire terrier with my 20 month old baby in his buggy as I came around a corner in an estate close to mine a Doberman was coming towards me. Off the lead and no muzzle. I knew it was going to attack my dog so I picked my dog up as fast as I could and turned my back also protecting my child too. I then felt unbelievable pain as the Doberman bit me in my upper leg. The owner came running around and told it to stop. And then her husband too. They said they where sorry and it never happened before. I was crouched down in agony but I just wanted to get away from them and make sure my dog and my child where ok. I just said to them to leave me alone. I went around the corner and I checked the bite. I was cut open and already had bruising so I went to the doctor who gave me a tetnis shot and also antibiotics and pain killers. I then went to the guards and told them of the incident. There were no other witness's to this so I know it could be their word against mine. I just can't believe they had a dog like that not muzzled or on a lead. What should I do next or if I should do anymore? I have their address and the guard said he would be paying them a visit tonight or in the morning.

I feel sorry for the OP who was clearly nervous with his dog out walking and who was frightened on behalf of his child, and was bitten. I hope your leg begins to improve soon OP.

Day after day I see people with small dogs whipping them up into their arms as other dogs approach and cannot understand this - it excites the other dog who still wants to greet them and often triggers a fear or aggression in the dog in the arms - which the other dog can sense. From reading your post I would say something in your dog or the action of scooping it up and turning around triggered the other dog. Notwithstanding this it should have been muzzled as it is a restricted breed. There are no winners here as you are injured and frightend, the owners may lose their beloved pet and the dog will be taken and killed. Surely if a bit of human kindness and compassion can prevail there could be an agreement made - medical bills paid for you and a once off always muzzled and never let out off lead on the estate loose, which you can revisit with the police if you ever see the dog out loose or unmuzzled again? I cannot imagine losing a pet in such circumstances and can only imagine how devestating it must be for the owners. Can there not be a bit of compassion and forgiving - there for the grace of God goes your little dog or anyones pet - someone claiming it snapped aggressively at them or their child or always snarls at them when you walk by -you dont want to make it a target by their friends or family. A little grace and compassion goes a long way - not taking away from your real fear or fright or medical needs. Can you not see a way to compromise and not take their pet from
them but keep yourself and others safe and have tour medical needs taKen care of?

Graces7

JustAThought wrote: »

I feel sorry for the OP who was clearly nervous with his dog out walking and who was frightened on behalf of his child, and was bitten. I hope your leg begins to improve soon OP.

Day after day I see people with small dogs whipping them up into their arms as other dogs approach and cannot understand this - it excites the other dog who still wants to greet them and often triggers a fear or aggression in the dog in the arms - which the other dog can sense. From reading your post I would say something in your dog or the action of scooping it up and turning around triggered the other dog. Notwithstanding this it should have been muzzled as it is a restricted breed. There are no winners here as you are injured and frightend, the owners may lose their beloved pet and the dog will be taken and killed. Surely if a bit of human kindness and compassion can prevail there could be an agreement made - medical bills paid for you and a once off always muzzled and never let out off lead on the estate loose, which you can revisit with the police if you ever see the dog out loose or unmuzzled again? I cannot imagine losing a pet in such circumstances and can only imagine how devestating it must be for the owners. Can there not be a bit of compassion and forgiving - there for the grace of God goes your little dog or anyones pet - someone claiming it snapped aggressively at them or their child or always snarls at them when you walk by -you dont want to make it a target by their friends or family. A little grace and compassion goes a long way - not taking away from your real fear or fright or medical needs. Can you not see a way to compromise and not take their pet from
them but keep yourself and others safe and have tour medical needs taKen care of?

If you read the OPs posts? He did not want the dog put down. Period.And as another poster said, this was rightly reported to the police/dog warden so it is they who would make any such decision.

ALso this was far from the first time the dog had been unmuzzled and offlead . It is the owners at fault here not the OP who got a very nasty bite defending his toddler from potential attack .

The reason for compulsory muzzling is clear. And for keeping any dog on the lead as the OPS was.

So maybe address the owners? Anyone will defend their child and their dog, when there is a dog loose and headed for them.

Hoping the OP is OK? HE has not posted in a while.