Can dog be PTS for biting another dog???

DeeRottie

Hi guys, I posted this in the Pet Issues forum and I just wanted to get some opinion on whether the warden can insist this dog is put to sleep. I'm gonna copy over:

Hi all, I came on here looking for some clarification on the powers that dog wardens have after receiving the following (edited) message from a friend:

Hey D, I have a favour/advice to ask from you about a doggie related situation that we have. Ms X has a Rottie/doberman X. She's about 6 years old and a lovely little thing. She's great around children and we've never had any problems with her around our dog or around brother's two dogs(one of which is an excitable puppy) but unfortunately she seems to have an issue with dogs she doesn't know. She escaped from Ms X's backgarden last week while Ms X was out and bit another dog. The other dog is fine and the vet could treat him easily enough I think but the owner is understandably upset about it. The be all and end all of the situation is that the owner contacted the dog warden and he has told Ms X to rehome the dog off the estate or she'll have to have her destroyed. We obviously don't want that to happen, could you help us get the word out about her or even tell us the best way to make sure she gets rehomed to a good home!! There was another similar incident a few years ago where she went for another dog but Ms X has since kept her muzzled while out on a lead. I can't say this for certain now but I do think alot of the aggression towards the strange dogs comes from her wanting to protect Ms X. Anytime my husband has walked her she pays little or no attention to other dogs. Whew, I think that covers everything!!

Now please don't tell me what the owner should have done - obv the dog should not have been able to get out, but that horse has bolted. I've been reading the thread on Jill the siezed GSD and while I am aware that the warden would have to go to court to get a destruction order if she attacked a person, I'm wondering can the warden get a destruction order for her biting a dog?

I'm also disgusted by the attitude of 'rehome the dog off the estate'. Ummm if you thought the dog was dangerous, how is advising her to be moved somewhere else be responsible??????? I feel like the warden has no power here and feels that by making threats s/he can get the dog off the estate and therefore keep the complainant happy, but realistically there's nothing s/he can do but fine the owner for having the dog off lead and unmuzzled in a public place.

Ideally I'd love if the owner could sit down and speak to the owner and sort something out to make sure the dog never gets out again, but from my experience a large amount of wardens in the country are not the type to be reasoned with .....

Any feedback/help would be appreciated.

Another message I received from my friend:

The dog warden has told her that he will go to court and telling her because of previous incident he'll get it, but we thing he's full of it cos he keeps saying 'oh if u just rehome her i won't'. Turns out the other dog was off lead, possibly without an owner present but not entirely sure on that point just yet.

Basically, I just want to know if the warden will be able to order the dog PTS, seeing as both dogs were not under the control of their owners an no person or livestock was injured (or worried obv)? The owner will do everything in her control to prevent this from ever happening again, the dog is a family pet and not a 'status dog'. She lives on a private estate btw.

nuac

1. Why does Mrs X have a Rottweiler/Doberman cross on a residential estate ? I presume there are children on the estate. Their parents must be worried about about such dogs.

2. She is obliged to have this dog on a leash and muzzled when outside her property. DJ unlikely to make exceptions

3. How ever it happened, the dog got out. The fact that he attacked another dog is not a good sign.

4. If the dog warden applies to the District Court under S 22 of the 1986 the DJ is likely to make an order for it's destruction.

5. Re-homing might be the solution. Many are sceptical about bahavioural training of Rottweilers / Dobermans

btw many local authority and even private estates have conditions in their tenancy or transfer deed re dangerous animals - i.e. those classed as such in the Regulations.

ResearchWill

A dog warden can not order the destruction of a dog, only a judge can in this situation.


Dangerous dogs.

22.—(1) Where—

(a) on a complaint being made to the District Court by any interested person that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, or

(b) on the conviction of any person for an offence under section 9 (2) of this Act,

it appears to the Court that the dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, the Court may, in addition to any other penalty which it may impose, order that the dog be kept under proper control or be destroyed.

(2) Whenever the Court orders the destruction of a dog pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the Court may—

(a) direct that the dog be delivered to a dog warden or any suitable person to be destroyed, and

(b) direct that the expenses of the destruction of the dog be paid by the owner of the dog.

(3) Whenever a dog is delivered to a dog warden or any other person pursuant to an order of the Court to be destroyed, the person to whom the dog is delivered shall, as soon as possible, destroy the dog, or cause it to be destroyed, in a humane manner.

(4) Any sums payable by the owner of a dog pursuant to a direction of the Court under subsection (2) (b) of this section may be recovered by a local authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(5) Where a dog is proved to have caused damage in an attack on any person, or to have injured livestock, it may be dealt with under this section as a dangerous dog which has not been kept under proper control.

The control of dogs act 1986, it is of course open to the warden to bring the matter to the court, if court satisfied dog is dangerous and not under controll the court can order that the dog be so controlled or destroyed.

MagicSean

nuac wrote: »

1. Why does Mrs X have a Rottweiler/Doberman cross on an residential estate ? I presume there are children on the estate. Their parents must be worried about about such dogs.

That's more due to their ignorance than the dog though.

nuac wrote: »

2. She is obliged to have this dog on a leash and muzzled when outside her property. DJ unlikely to make exceptions

Afaik the offence is to allow the dog to be out without a restraint and muzzle. An escaped dog does not really fit this.

nuac wrote: »

3. How ever it happened, the dog got out. The fact that he attacked another dog is not a good sign.

People tend to exaggerate. It's likely the dog just snapped at another dog who approached it. This is perfectly normal canine behaviour.

nuac wrote: »

4. If the dog warden applies to the District Court under S 22 of the 1986 the DJ is likely to make an order for it's destruction.

The owner should fight this to the best of their ability.

nuac wrote: »

btw many local authority and even private estates have conditions in their tenancy or transfer deed re dangerous animals - i.e. those classed as such in the Regulations.

There are no "dangerous" dogs listed in any regulations. Are you thinking of restricted breeds by any chance?

DeeRottie wrote: »

Hi guys, I posted this in the Pet Issues forum and I just wanted to get some opinion on whether the warden can insist this dog is put to sleep. I'm gonna copy over:

Hi all, I came on here looking for some clarification on the powers that dog wardens have after receiving the following (edited) message from a friend:

Hey D, I have a favour/advice to ask from you about a doggie related situation that we have. Ms X has a Rottie/doberman X. She's about 6 years old and a lovely little thing. She's great around children and we've never had any problems with her around our dog or around brother's two dogs(one of which is an excitable puppy) but unfortunately she seems to have an issue with dogs she doesn't know. She escaped from Ms X's backgarden last week while Ms X was out and bit another dog. The other dog is fine and the vet could treat him easily enough I think but the owner is understandably upset about it. The be all and end all of the situation is that the owner contacted the dog warden and he has told Ms X to rehome the dog off the estate or she'll have to have her destroyed. We obviously don't want that to happen, could you help us get the word out about her or even tell us the best way to make sure she gets rehomed to a good home!! There was another similar incident a few years ago where she went for another dog but Ms X has since kept her muzzled while out on a lead. I can't say this for certain now but I do think alot of the aggression towards the strange dogs comes from her wanting to protect Ms X. Anytime my husband has walked her she pays little or no attention to other dogs. Whew, I think that covers everything!!

Now please don't tell me what the owner should have done - obv the dog should not have been able to get out, but that horse has bolted. I've been reading the thread on Jill the siezed GSD and while I am aware that the warden would have to go to court to get a destruction order if she attacked a person, I'm wondering can the warden get a destruction order for her biting a dog?

I'm also disgusted by the attitude of 'rehome the dog off the estate'. Ummm if you thought the dog was dangerous, how is advising her to be moved somewhere else be responsible??????? I feel like the warden has no power here and feels that by making threats s/he can get the dog off the estate and therefore keep the complainant happy, but realistically there's nothing s/he can do but fine the owner for having the dog off lead and unmuzzled in a public place.

Ideally I'd love if the owner could sit down and speak to the owner and sort something out to make sure the dog never gets out again, but from my experience a large amount of wardens in the country are not the type to be reasoned with .....

Any feedback/help would be appreciated.

Another message I received from my friend:

The dog warden has told her that he will go to court and telling her because of previous incident he'll get it, but we thing he's full of it cos he keeps saying 'oh if u just rehome her i won't'. Turns out the other dog was off lead, possibly without an owner present but not entirely sure on that point just yet.

Basically, I just want to know if the warden will be able to order the dog PTS, seeing as both dogs were not under the control of their owners an no person or livestock was injured (or worried obv)? The owner will do everything in her control to prevent this from ever happening again, the dog is a family pet and not a 'status dog'. She lives on a private estate btw.

The dog warden will have to prove the dog is dangerous. Snapping at another dog who approaches it is not dangerous. It's how dogs communicate. The owner could get a dog behaviourist to go to court to explain this to the judge.

The dog warden being satisfied that the matter would be resolved if the dog was moved shows that he doesn't think it's dangerous.

From the sounds of it Mrs X is not treating her dog right so it would probably be better for her to find someone able to handle a dog like that.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that your title is a little misleading. i was expecting a ridiculous debate on dogs suffering post traumatic stress. Can't understand why people don't just say "put down"

Procrastastudy

MagicSean wrote: »

Afaik the offence is to allow the dog to be out without a restraint and muzzle. An escaped dog does not really fit this.

Presumably this come down to how it escaped and from what? I assume the situation would be different if it was 12ft wooden fenced area rather than a 3ft wire fence? What is someone just left a gate open?

Or would the approach be - it got out your fault you allowed it to happen? (Assuming no third party)

DeeRottie

Thanks very much for the replies. In regard to the various dog breeds, people need to be very clear on the fact that no dog is considered 'dangerous' from birth, certain dogs are supposed to be kept on a lead and muzzled due to them being a Restricted Breed in Ireland (which this dog is) but that's the extent of it. For a dog to be 'dangerous' it has to be deemed so by a court.

I don't think it's fair to say the owner is not treating her dog right, the dog is loved, fed, walked, etc and is muzzled when walked. This was a case of the dog escaping from the garden for the first time in 6 years and the owner is prepared to work with the warden to ensure this won't happen again, but no dice. I understand where the warden is coming from, but in all honesty considering the amount of people who just turf their dogs out in the morning to roam for the day and just don't give a damn, I thought there might be some leeway for someone who wants to work with him?

ResearchWill I read the legislation you posted and that's what had me stumped as it seems to me that as this was an incident between two off-lead dogs and not an incident which caused ' damage in an attack on any person, or to have injured livestock' that maybe this is not covered by the legislation in question? Otherwise people would have dogs put down on a daily basis for biting each other! But I can stand to be corrected.

I hope that what you say may be the case MagicSean, as if the warden is willing to move the dog to another home, how could the warden saying the dog is dangerous hold up in court?

On a minor note, the acronym PTS is commonly used in veterinary and animal welfare circles to signify 'put to sleep'. I think you're confusing it with PTSD, which is post traumatic stress disorder and a whole different kettle of fish

MagicSean

Yes i am aware of the ridiculously sentimental use of the acronym among some peopl. I think it's actually a forum rule in the pets section. I just think it's pointless.

Breeds like the Rottie and Doberman need to be shown their place and need an assertive owner. If the dog feels like he has to protect his owner it's because he thinks she needs protecting and that's all down to the way she treats him.

Duiske

I think the warden is just on a power trip, and worse, he is incompetent. He feels that the dog is dangerous enough to warrant it being destroyed, but is happy enough to have it rehoused in another area ?

Discodog

Many Wardens rely on bullying the owner into handing over the dog. They will say that there is no chance of a Court agreeing to spare the dog. They give the impression that they are the law. In reality they are totally unqualified to assess whether a dog poses a risk.

The bullying tactic is used because they don't want a Court case. If a defendant seeks the advice of a qualified behaviourist & a Vet their testimony would be very influential especially against an unqualified person. The real problem here is that the Warden may attempt to seize the dog. It is a grey area as to whether Wardens can enter a garden as they cannot enter a residence without a warrant. However it has been known for the Warden to turn up with the Guards.

The dog owner needs to reach a written agreement with the Warden. Perhaps by giving a written undertaking to keep the dog under control in return for the threats being dropped.

nuac

1. The breeds and crosses listed in the 1991 Regulations are so listed because due to their size, strength and breeding they are considered to be dangerous. I have heard Local Authority vets give this evidence in court and it has been accepted.

2. Most District Judges I have known would be worried about such a dog being in a residential housing estate. Even if securely fenced, dogs do escape, or are released by others. The high fencing required to contain such a dog may be in breach of planning or in breach of a covenant in the title.

3. I recall a case where a youngster of about ten panicked on meeting an alsation type dog ( one of the type listed in the 1991 regs ), tried to climb a wall, was pulled down and severely bitten. Most DJs are aware of similar cases.

4. Apart from an application for destruction under s 22 CODA 1986, the Council are also likely to summons under S 9 of the same Act for permitting the dog to be outside the owner's premises without a muzzle or leash. It can be argued that "permitting" requires some action by the owner, but a DJ may consider that it the dog did get out there was a defect in the fencing or system- sort of res ipsa loquitur

5. I accept there are obvious lines of defence to both the s 22 application and the s 9 summons. Apart from technical defences may be able to offer evidence that this rottweiler cross is really a cuddly gentle pet. Good luck with that.

6. Sorry to have such a negative view about dogs listed in the 1991 regualtions in residential areas. It is based on my experience.

7. By all means talk to the Dog Warden, or the DW's boss who may be a vet. However the DW is likely to want the dog moved somewhere away from children

Discodog

nuac wrote: »

1. The breeds and crosses listed in the 1991 Regulations are so listed because due to their size, strength and breeding they are considered to be dangerous. I have heard Local Authority vets give this evidence in court and it has been accepted.

Size, strength & breeding have nothing to do with whether a dog is dangerous or not. If the LA wish to call their Vet to give such evidence it would easily be shown to be totally ill informed. AFAIK even the Vet's governing body totally disagree with Breed Specific legislation.

nuac wrote: »

2. Most District Judges I have known would be worried about such a dog being in a residential housing estate. Even if securely fenced, dogs do escape, or are released by others. The high fencing required to contain such a dog may be in breach of planning or in breach of a covenant in the title.

What do you mean by "such a dog". Our President keeps St Bernards that are just as big. Tens of thousands of people keep big dogs. A standard 6 ft fence will contain practically any dog.

nuac wrote: »

3. I recall a case where a youngster of about ten panicked on meeting an alsation type dog ( one of the type listed in the 1991 regs ), tried to climb a wall, was pulled down and severely bitten. Most DJs are aware of similar cases.

The dog bite statistics show that all breeds bite. A DJ should judge a case on it's merits & not on other unrelated cases.

nuac wrote: »

4. Apart from an application for destruction under s 22 CODA 1986, the Council are also likely to summons under S 9 of the same Act for permitting the dog to be outside the owner's premises without a muzzle or leash. It can be argued that "permitting" requires some action by the owner, but a DJ may consider that it the dog did get out there was a defect in the fencing or system- sort of res ipsa loquitur

The failure to muzzle or leash is punishable by a fine & not the destruction of the dog.

nuac wrote: »

5. I accept there are obvious lines of defence to both the s 22 application and the s 9 summons. Apart from technical defences may be able to offer evidence that this rottweiler cross is really a cuddly gentle pet. Good luck with that.

In Ireland, where we are about 30 years behind the rest of Europe in these matters, it would be unusual for a Defendant to produce expert witnesses. We now have a number of qualified behaviourist, canine psychologists & knowledgeable Vets. I have attended a number of cases in the UK & DJ's are prepared to accept evidence.

nuac wrote: »

6. Sorry to have such a negative view about dogs listed in the 1991 regualtions in residential areas. It is based on my experience.

My experience of Breed Specific legislation is that it is fundamentally flawed. Most Vets, Animal Welfare groups & experts agree. The UK is about to abandon such legislation.

nuac wrote: »

7. By all means talk to the Dog Warden, or the DW's boss who may be a vet. However the DW is likely to want the dog moved somewhere away from children

The Dog Warden's boss won't be a Vet. Wardens are employed by the Dept of the Environment whereas LA Vets are Dept of Agriculture. This thread is not about what the Warden wants, it is about what the law allows.

The Dog owner should not agree to or sign anything. Once any restricted breed is in the "custody" of the Pound there is only one outcome. So the owner has nothing to lose by challenging the LA in Court.

Just a thought but if the dog is insured it may cover legal costs.

nuac

Discodog wrote: »

"Size, strength & breeding have nothing to do with whether a dog is dangerous or not. If the LA wish to call their Vet to give such evidence it would easily be shown to be totally ill informed. AFAIK even the Vet's governing body totally disagree with Breed Specific legislation."

I have heard Council Vets give evidence in court in cases of dogs attacking people. In this case we are discussing a Rottweiler cross. Perhaps rebutting evidence can be called -but these regs have been in force now for approx 30 years and I have never heard such rebutting evidence. It can of course be put to the LA vet in cross-examination that (s)he is mistaken or out of date or whatever, but the court will require actual evidence to support whatever points are made in cross examination.



"What do you mean by "such a dog". Our President keeps St Bernards that are just as big. Tens of thousands of people keep big dogs. A standard 6 ft fence will contain practically any dog".

I meant the Rottweiler cross.

Further if a big dog attacks a child, there is the potential for much more damage.


"The dog bite statistics show that all breeds bite. A DJ should judge a case on it's merits & not on other unrelated cases."

Yes a Westie may bite, but is unlikely to do as much damage as a Rottweiler

Of course a judge has to judge each case on it's own merits. However once you have seen a child in court with scars from dog bites sympathy tends to be more with the human than the dog

"The failure to muzzle or leash is punishable by a fine & not the destruction of the dog"

Agreed.



"In Ireland, where we are about 30 years behind the rest of Europe in these matters, it would be unusual for a Defendant to produce expert witnesses. We now have a number of qualified behaviourist, canine psychologists & knowledgeable Vets. I have attended a number of cases in the UK & DJ's are prepared to accept evidence".

That may be so, but the Courts operate the legislation before them


"My experience of Breed Specific legislation is that it is fundamentally flawed. Most Vets, Animal Welfare groups & experts agree. The UK is about to abandon such legislation".

see above

"The Dog Warden's boss won't be a Vet. Wardens are employed by the Dept of the Environment whereas LA Vets are Dept of Agriculture. This thread is not about what the Warden wants, it is about what the law allows."

In County councils. or at least one CC to my knowledge, the Dog Warden is a council employee and worked under the supervision of the Council's Veterinary section. Those Vets work in the Council offices and afaik are Council Employees. Those vets have occasionally given evidence in court in dog control matters.

"The Dog owner should not agree to or sign anything. Once any restricted breed is in the "custody" of the Pound there is only one outcome. So the owner has nothing to lose by challenging the LA in Court".

I still suggest that the owners should talk to the Dog Warden re re-homing. A Rottweiler should not be on a residential estate, even insde a six foot fence. On many estates there may be planning or title difficulties re such a fence.

I have beein in practice for over 40 years, and have been in court before quite a number of District Judges. If the judge is told that a Rottweiler is on an estate where there are children, the owner will find it hard to convince the DJ to leave it there, no matter how well fenced in.

"Just a thought but if the dog is insured it may cover legal costs".

......

DeeRottie

Just to give an update on what's happening here: the owner has decided that the best thing for everyone involved is to rehome the dog. I have given the names of some reputable rescues and said that the dog's bite history must be disclosed, as obviously there need to be no more incidents with this dog and he needs to go to a responsible owner.

Thanks for all the replies, I've personally found seeing both sides of a legal argument on this issue really interesting. I wonder how this case would turn out if it went to court, as it does really seem to be one of these things that could come down to the whim of the judge involved and how knowledgeable he/she is on modern research relating to dogs - but obviously I wouldn't want to see a dog's life on the line like that!

I hope never to find myself in a similar situation, esp given that my Rottie is the least likely of my dogs to bite and I have never come close to being in a situation where any of my dogs has injured anyone or anything. I'm not a fan of Breed Specific Legislation myself, but that's for another day.

Discodog

It may prove extremely difficult to rehome the dog especially with it's history & breed. You should have an alternative plan in case rehoming isn't an option.

DeeRottie

Well I'd imagine the only other option would be to have the dog PTS, if the owner is not willing to go to court?

Discodog

I doubt if anyone would be going to Court. The Warden cannot order that the dog be rehomed & in any event he should know that this would be very difficult. He is also going to find it difficult to prove that the dog is dangerous if it didn't bite a human.

So the only crime could be the lack of a muzzle - but the dog escaped so it is reasonable that it wouldn't be muzzled in the garden. He could argue that it was out of control & allowed to stray but that can be countered by showing that there is adequate fencing etc.

In any event non of these crimes are punishable by the destruction of the dog.

I find it disturbing that a loving owner wouldn't go to Court to defend their dog.

ResearchWill

Discodog wrote: »

I doubt if anyone would be going to Court. The Warden cannot order that the dog be rehomed & in any event he should know that this would be very difficult. He is also going to find it difficult to prove that the dog is dangerous if it didn't bite a human.

So the only crime could be the lack of a muzzle - but the dog escaped so it is reasonable that it wouldn't be muzzled in the garden. He could argue that it was out of control & allowed to stray but that can be countered by showing that there is adequate fencing etc.

In any event non of these crimes are punishable by the destruction of the dog.

I find it disturbing that a loving owner wouldn't go to Court to defend their dog.

While the risk is small there is always a risk of going to court. It depends on the judge on the day, if he finds that the dog is dangerous then he is within the law to order the destruction.

Remember you know your dog your neighbors know your dog, a judge will have no more than 30 mins to hear the evidence to make up his mind, if he makes the wrong decision it's the dog that pays the price.

I will again quote from the act

it appears to the Court that the dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, the Court may, in addition to any other penalty which it may impose, order that the dog be kept under proper control or be destroyed.


While you or I may not think this situation is one that requires the destruction of the dog, the court must only find two things it must appear (important word) 1 the dog is dangerous 2 the dog not kept under proper control. If the court finds that then it can 1 order a penalty, and then order that the dog be controlled or destroyed.

Discodog

ResearchWill wrote: »

While the risk is small there is always a risk of going to court. It depends on the judge on the day, if he finds that the dog is dangerous then he is within the law to order the destruction.

Remember you know your dog your neighbors know your dog, a judge will have no more than 30 mins to hear the evidence to make up his mind, if he makes the wrong decision it's the dog that pays the price.

In the, in my opinion, extremely unlikely event that it goes to Court then you ensure that a qualified behaviourist gives evidence in the Dog's defence - this is quite easy to arrange. The Warden will have a problem countering expert evidence as he is totally unqualified. If the dog cannot be rehomed then it sounds like it will pay a price anyway.

ResearchWill

Discodog wrote: »

In the, in my opinion, extremely unlikely event that it goes to Court then you ensure that a qualified behaviourist gives evidence in the Dog's defence - this is quite easy to arrange. The Warden will have a problem countering expert evidence as he is totally unqualified. If the dog cannot be rehomed then it sounds like it will pay a price anyway.

You are assuming the qualified behaviorist will be able to give the evidence that for a certainty the dog is not dangerous.

As an aside I have seen DJ's take the evidence of police over experts every day of the week.

But it is nice to see such faith in our judges, that they will always get it right.

Discodog

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are assuming the qualified behaviorist will be able to give the evidence that for a certainty the dog is not dangerous.

As an aside I have seen DJ's take the evidence of police over experts every day of the week.

But it is nice to see such faith in our judges, that they will always get it right.

This issue to prove is whether the dog poses a risk bearing in mind that it would only normally be out wearing a muzzle. An expert gives an opinion & I would not be surprised if an Irish judge chose to accept Garda evidence. I also wouldn't expect an Irish judge to have any knowledge or empathy with dogs. But a judge has to listen to evidence & impose appropriate penalties which in this case is a relatively small fine. He may well accept an undertaking that the dog will never be allowed out unsupervised.

In this case I cannot see any likelihood of Court action. There are far more pressing Garda & Court issues than one dog biting another.

ResearchWill

Discodog wrote: »

This issue to prove is whether the dog poses a risk bearing in mind that it would only normally be out wearing a muzzle. An expert gives an opinion & I would not be surprised if an Irish judge chose to accept Garda evidence. I also wouldn't expect an Irish judge to have any knowledge or empathy with dogs. But a judge has to listen to evidence & impose appropriate penalties which in this case is a relatively small fine. He may well accept an undertaking that the dog will never be allowed out unsupervised.

In this case I cannot see any likelihood of Court action. There are far more pressing Garda & Court issues than one dog biting another.

No where in the act does it say that the dog poses a risk, the simply says if it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous and not under controll.

Call to any DC in the land and see what the time is being wasted on. If the warden wants to take it to court he can, if the court wants to on the evidence find that the dog was dangerous and not under controll it can. Finally if the court after making that determination decides that the dog is to be destroyed it has the power to do so.

I know of a person they had bought over €20 of shopping, they said by mistake that they had forgotten to pay for a magazine in the trolley, offered to pay for it once mistake came to light, but no went to court where the person was convicted. In the scheme of things I thought that was a waste of court time but it did go ahead and resulted in conviction, a theft conviction for forgetting to pay for a magazine.

My point is so I am clear, the risk is a real risk it may be very small but it does exist.

nuac

I have read thru the various posts.

Have to remember this is a Rottweiler/Doberman Cross, in a residential area. I also see now that there are other dogs

If the Council proceed with an application for destruction ( section 22 1986 CODA ) the owner can of course offer her own and any qualfied experts opinion that the dog is not dangerous.

If the Dog warden gives the approx number of children on the estate, and states that he is aware of attacks on children by dogs of this type, the DJ would be concerned

Dog behavourists are relatively new in courts here. Perhaps a behavourist may convince a DJ that the dog is harmless.

If an application is filed I would recommend talking to the Dog Warden or Councl Vet

DeeRottie

That won't happen, like I said the owner has decided to rehome the dog. It's a very difficult situation to be in but it won't be taken further now. I know if it was me I'd fight it but then again I'm surgically attached to my dogs!

Discodog

nuac wrote: »

Have to remember this is a Rottweiler/Doberman Cross, in a residential area. I also see now that there are other dogs

There are thousands of big dogs living with families in residential areas without any problem. I could show any judge evidence that people just as likely to be bitten by a Chihuahua.

nuac wrote: »

If teh Dog warden gives the approx number fo children on the estate, and states that he is aware of attacks on children by dogs of this type, the DJ would be concerned

Again this is totally irrelevant. If the Warden wants to present evidence of dog attacks then he will be cross examined as to the validity of such evidence. Any Vet or Behaviourist would have no problem is totally discrediting such evidence. If the County Vet gave evidence then they would be in the difficult position of going against the views of their governing body who are adamant that breed has nothing to do with aggression.

nuac wrote: »

Dog behavourist are relatively new in courts here. Perhaps a behavourist may convince a DF that the dog is harmless.

If an application is filed I would recommend talking to the Dog Warden or Councl Vet

Well we are about 30 years behind many Countries in the way that we deal with these matters. The owner in this case has been bullied & intimidated into getting rid of their dog & this is the usual outcome. Once the Council know that the case will be vigorously defended & expert witnesses called, they might well back down.