Dog Biting Law?

baltimore sun

Had a bit of a row, nay quarrel with someone yesterday, could you help me settle an argument please.
What is the law concerning an animal that bites a human and/or another animal.

I was under the impression that there's an unwritten one that if your dog bits me harshly then it is agreed that the animal is put to sleep, the same goes for if my dog breaks into a field of sheep and kills a lamb or two then the dog is also put to sleep. Is it written in law anywhere or is it just an unwritten rule?

andreac

There is no law as such regarding that type of incident. If your dog bit someone then the courts have to decide whether your dog is dangerous and has to be put down.

kildare.17hmr

if your dog gets in and is worrying livestock it's likely to be shot if seen by farmer so it does not even have to kill anything just chasing them is enough. Not sure of the ins and outs of what happens if a dog bites you

seamus

There's an out of date notion that if a dog bites a person it is automatically too dangerous to keep around people and must be put to sleep.

This notion most likely goes back thousands of years to when dogs were being domesticated, and in order to breed the most human-friendly dogs, a dog which showed natural aggression or fear towards humans would be automatically destroyed. This would ensure that the most-human friendly dogs would have the most huamn-friendly offspring.
This is the very nature of domestication and why there are no human-aggressive dog breeds today.

This antiquated notion however has persisted and grown legs and is often justified by people on the basis that, "The dog can no longer be trusted" or "He's got a taste for blood now". Both nonsense of course but kept alive by ignoramuses. We probably destroy a dog now more easily than our "primitive" bronze age ancestors did. They most likely judged a dog on his overall attitude rather than a single bite or incident before deciding if he could be bred.

So strong is this notion in some quarters that some people think it's law, or just "the right thing to do" that a dog who bites must be destroyed.

The law is that a dog who causes damage to property or a person is classed as a "dangerous" dog. This dog can only be destroyed on the basis of a court order. The request for this court order is made by a dog warden.

Whether the judge will go issue the order depends on the judge's mood, the judge's attitude to dogs, the breed, the owner's attitude to dogs, the wind direction that day, whether it's summer or winter, etc etc. I.e. there is no way to say for definite whether a court will order a dog destroyed.

The only exception is for a farmer where a dog is causing damage to his livestock. He is permitted to do whatever is necessary to protect his property.

borderlinemeath

By the reasoning that a dog must be pts if it bites somebody does not take into account situations where dogs are teased, frightened, beaten etc. All these situations can lead a dog to give a warning bite as a defence mechanism and to put a dog down based on that is beyond all reasonable comprehension.

Birdnuts

If a dog bites an uninvitied guest on your property then you are in the clear AFAIK - other then that you are in a world of pain, both legally and financially!!

baltimore sun

Thanks, looks like I was wrong so. I was in a situation many years ago as a child where one of my dogs killed some sheep, the same day he was brought to the vet and put to sleep.

I know I'm an ignoramus in your eyes Seamus, but so be it and if shep was to bite anyone on my property unprovoked or without reason, i.e a burglar then I'd probably do the same, especially if it was a child. As much as I love the wee dog I just feel that it wouldn't be worth the chance that he could do some serious damage if it happened a second time.

anyway, thanks for clearing it up.

seamus

baltimore sun wrote: »

I know I'm an ignoramus in your eyes Seamus, but so be it and if shep was to bite anyone on my property unprovoked or without reason, i.e a burglar then I'd probably do the same, especially if it was a child. As much as I love the wee dog I just feel that it wouldn't be worth the chance that he could do some serious damage if it happened a second time.

Without getting into a debate on it, the problem here is "without reason". Many people view animals in very simple terms, as mindless automatons. As such, they don't look for reasons why a dog might bite, instead they consider the dog "faulty" and get rid of it.

In reality all animals are as complex as humans. There is always a reason why a dog has bitten someone, and therefore there is always corrective action which can be taken to stop it happening again. So destroying a dog "just in case it happens again" is about as logical as permanently locking a child up for punching another child because, "I can't take the risk that it might happen again". That's the way that I view it.

Discodog

Whilst Seamus is correct - as usual we do need to be aware that if a Dog Warden goes to Court one could have a serious battle to save the dog. The majority of Judges will accept a Warden's personal opinion as fact & it might be very difficult to get expert testimony to support the dog. This is especially the case when, as we have seen on Boards, the warden seizes the dog & will not allow access.

If an owner were to get expert testimony then the Warden could have difficulty proving their case as they have no qualifications in animal behaviour. Even a Vet could testify & state that there could be a valid medical reason for the alleged attack that needs to be assessed by examination.

The key to all of this is to avoid the Warden taking your dog because then you lose control of the situation. Make it clear that you will attend Court & present your case. Also do not accept what a Warden says as correct - it may not be.

kildare.17hmr

Are you saying refuse to hand over your dog to a warden?

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Are you saying refuse to hand over your dog to a warden?

We have had this conversation before. On Boards I would not advocate anyone breaking the law. But if one of my dogs knew that the warden wanted to take him - he might escape

I would still go to Court to defend the dog & I would be very well equipped with proper evidence. It is totally unacceptable for a Warden to take a dog & then refuse to allow the dog to be properly assessed by experts. This can only be done with the dog in a reasonably stress free environment & not in the Pound.

There should be a simple system where the accused dog is put on "bail" so that it has to remain at the owners premises whilst investigations & assessments are carried out. If this is not possible then the dog should at least be put in the care of a recognised rescue & the owner given full access. A few days in the Pound, devoid of the owners company, could change the behaviour of any dog & we have seen cases here where the Warden has refused the owner access.

It is also completely wrong that someone, who is totally unqualified, is allowed to make assumptions about a dog & be regarded as an expert.

EDIT: The maximum fine for refusing to hand over a dog to the warden is €100 so the law hardly sees it as serious. Also the warden has no right of entry to a dwelling but bear in mind that some definitions of dwelling refer to just the house & others to the house & garden.

iguana

seamus wrote: »

"He's got a taste for blood now". Both nonsense of course but kept alive by ignoramuses.

I used to hear that all of the time when I was a child. I remember being terrified when my 3yo brother held up a piece of ham for our young family dog (about 4months) and held it too tight and the dog broke his skin when he jumped for the ham. I was equally frightened that the dog would go mad and want to attack us all for our addictively delicious blood and that he would have to be put to sleep because of it. Even for a while afterwards I reasoned that the taste of the ham must have masked the taste of the blood and that's why Spats didn't become a crazed killer dog.