RB Fines

lrushe

Just back from the park with my Rotties. Got stopped by the dog warden to tell me that from the 1st of July the Gardai will be handing out on the spot €100 fines for unmuzzled RBs.
Anyone else heard anything similar??

toadfly

I havent heard that, I did hear they were changing the fine for no dog licence to €100 but we got the renewal for Lexi the other day and it still says €30 fine.

Did he fine you?

lrushe

No, he said he was just out warning people, saw him chatting with a guy with 2 GSDs before me.
Might see if I can root out Brook's Dogmatic collar for the time being.

Knine

Rather then chasing around after responsible owners out with their dogs doing no harm, they would be better off going after the owners who feel its ok to open the hall door and allow their dog out to roam around.

It would bring in plenty of revenue if the current law was enforced of always having a dog under control regardless of breed.

I have to scan the horizon of my estate before I bring my kids and dogs out to ensure they won't be attacked by several local dogs.

lrushe

It does feel like an exercise in revenue collection :-(
I did express my frustration to the warden & in fairness he was sympathetic but at the same time there was nothing he could do.
I really don't know if I'd get another RB, it's just getting harder & harder for decent people to keep them!!

time lord

lrushe wrote: »

Just back from the park with my Rotties. Got stopped by the dog warden to tell me that from the 1st of July the Gardai will be handing out on the spot €100 fines for unmuzzled RBs.
Anyone else heard anything similar??

Why would a warden say the Gardaí will be handing out fines? Surely they should be talking about themselves first and foremost handing out fines. Just a thought on the conversation given.

lrushe

time lord wrote: »

Why would a warden say the Gardaí will be handing out fines? Surely they should be talking about themselves first and foremost handing out fines. Just a thought on the conversation given.

The impression I got was that they had handed over the responsiblity for handing out fines to the Gardai.

time lord

lrushe wrote: »

The impression I got was that they had handed over the responsiblity for handing out fines to the Gardai.

Maybe in a lazy way! But seriously each local authority must by law employ a dog warden, their get out clause is that they can fund say a charity to do this or use another local authorities warden and have them run a pound but they cannot use the Gardaí as opt out of having a dog warden.
They definitely would of done this in the eighties if it meant not having to employ someone extra on their pay roles.
I'd guess and I'm often wrong, they were putting themselves forward as the nice guy whilst having mention of the stick approach (€100 fine) appropriated it to another body whilst feeling they still got their point across 'muzzle the dog'

lrushe

You could be right of course, was just wondering if anyone else had any similar encounters or heard of similar.
He did seem to be out to find RB owners today, I've near seen a warden in that park in 20 years so it was just a bit strange.

time lord

lrushe wrote: »

You could be right of course, was just wondering if anyone else had any similar encounters or heard of similar.
He did seem to be out to find RB owners today, I've near seen a warden in that park in 20 years so it was just a bit strange.

The amendments are easier to use for enforcement. Up to this a R.B. not securley muzzled was breaking the control of dogs act but its wasn't subject to a fixed penalty notice as it is now. So it would of being dealt with by summons which for a singular offence was not going to happen.
A single instance is now subject to a €100 fine. My nearest local authorities would be still warning R.B. owners and nobody has being fined the €100 yet for the non muzzling part. I would predict a change in this soon but each local authority and Garda Station is differant. Many Stations have not had dog fine books in years so may never go beyond a warning at best.

Kukey

I think they are out in force now as there have been a lot of dog attacks on other dogs and kids lately.
I won't be getting another RB dog as I can't enjoy my dog like other owners of non RB dogs.I don't even like going to the beach anymore because she is muzzled and leashed and can't enjoy it.My JRT can have a good run but I can't even throw a ball for her, as my GSD goes mad to chase after it as well and it's not fair on her:(
I am also the only person in my area who has a muzzle on their dog!

Bullseye1

Don't be put off owning a RB because of ignorant laws. There are plenty of places to walk/run your dog without the need to put on a lead or muzzle.

TooManyDogs

Out of curiosity, do the head collars qualify as muzzles?

Whispered

Please please PLEASE don't be put off owning an RB dog. They NEED owners like you, the good ones, to show people just how unnecessary the laws are a lot of the time. Yes it's harder to have them offlead, but there are ways and means.

You not only have a dog you love - you're doing a service to all "dogkind" Don't let the ignorance win out. I will always own an RB if only to prove that the "R" part is stupid!

Kukey

No the warden around here doesn't accept head collars as muzzles.I have the Trixie muzzle band for my dog and she has great freedom for panting with it on,it's not as restrictive as other muzzles can be.I have tried to get a link for you off zooplus but it seems they don't sell them anymore:( You may be able to get one on eBay.
Thanks Bullseye and Whispered,yes I do get disheartened but you are both right in what you say.I do have a field she can go to and run free,unmuzzled and do what she loves best-chasing her tennis ball:)I do this every day before we go to the park for a walk,so at least she has had a run and is happy to then wear her muzzle and walk around.
She is middle aged though so luckily not as high energy as a younger dog.I pity anyone who has younger RBs who don't have access to fields and can't let them run anywhere.
I'd imagine that would lead to a very frustrated dog,who would probably end up biting someone or attacking another dog,just because it's needs where not met.

time lord

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do the head collars qualify as muzzles?

If you mean something like a Halti or a head piece that can tighten if strained then no. The proviso is that the dog is securley muzzled. These other devices do not meet this stipulation.

tk123

Kukey wrote: »

No the warden around here doesn't accept head collars as muzzles.I have the Trixie muzzle band for my dog and she has great freedom for panting with it on,it's not as restrictive as other muzzles can be.I have tried to get a link for you off zooplus but it seems they don't sell them anymore:( You may be able to get one on eBay.

Amazon sell them - cheaper than zooplus too

are you serious

There is no stipulation or any kind of definition anywhere in the restricted breed act about what a muzzle actually is.

If its sold as a muzzle I would use it as a muzzle, and tell the warden the same!

time lord

are you serious wrote: »

There is no stipulation or any kind of definition anywhere in the restricted breed act about what a muzzle actually is.

If its sold as a muzzle I would use it as a muzzle, and tell the warden the same!

The dog must be "securley muzzled" to comply with the law. As per
S.I. No. 442/1998 — Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998

(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

Kukey

Phew thanks tk123 I went into a cold sweat when I couldn't find it on zooplus:)
I will have to order a spare one,just in case my one goes missing or someone has a little chew on it:)

DBB

are you serious wrote: »

There is no stipulation or any kind of definition anywhere in the restricted breed act about what a muzzle actually is.

I don't think there needs to be, as it says the dog must be "securely muzzled".
So, if the dog manages to bite somebody, the muzzle is demonstrably not secured. I'm guessing there is not definition of a muzzle, because "muzzling" means to keep the muzzle (animal's facial area) restrained... so it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you do it. But using a headcollar (Halti, Canny, Gentle Leader etc) does not satisfy the definition, and neither do they claim to.
Is it just me, or is there a bit of a concerted effort being made to enforce the dog control laws (especially RB laws) these days, especially in Dublin and some other areas?

are you serious

I have yet to be asked to muzzle mine by the park wardens, I was asked once to put them back on the lead, I done that, and nothing more said, both of them seem like nice enough fella's, always give a wave or say hello if they see me even outside of the park.

edit..: Time Lord/DBB I am fully aware of the act and I have read it back to front, I'm not denying that it states in it that they have to be muzzled... What I am saying is a muzzle is not defined anywhere in the act.

I know what muzzle means as does everyone else(I assume), but for the purpose of the act it should be defined and it is not.

time lord

are you serious wrote: »

I have yet to be asked to muzzle mine by the park wardens, I was asked once to put them back on the lead, I done that, and nothing more said, both of them seem like nice enough fella's, always give a wave or say hello if they see me even outside of the park.

edit..: Time Lord/DBB I am fully aware of the act and I have read it back to front, I'm not denying that it states in it that they have to be muzzled... What I am saying is a muzzle is not defined anywhere in the act.

I know what muzzle means as does everyone else(I assume), but for the purpose of the act it should be defined and it is not.

Securley muzzled is what's required by the act so what way you securley muzzle is up to you. The definition your mentioning of a muzzle is not required. Not defining a muzzle has no bearing on its enforcement.
The act doesn't define plenty of things such as there is no definition of a dwelling where a dog warden may not enter so is a farm of 100 acres all a dwelling for example?

mitosis

DBB wrote: »

Is it just me, or is there a bit of a concerted effort being made to enforce the dog control laws (especially RB laws) these days, especially in Dublin and some other areas?

I hope so, because like a lot of other laws in this country, a certain type of person flouts them to the disadvantage of the rest.

Take my local park, with playground, old folks exercise area, ballgame fields etc. The signs are at the entrance and also in other areas throughout.

Dogs must be kept on leash

Clean up after your dog

Are the instructions followed? Are they hell: I estimate 80% of dogs running loose, chasing geese, ducks etc, and dog sh1t everywhere, on the paths, in the grass.

The bad owners are ruining it for everyone. The good owners need to stop blaming the lawmakers/enforcers and start blaming their fellow dog owners for creating a situation in the first place where something that is common decency has to be legislated.

Gremlin

Before I start, I love RB's, they get a bad rep they really don't deserve. SOME RB owners are the ones who need to be muzzled IMO. Just last week I was walking my leashed non RB dog when we were set upon by two staffies. The owners were paying no attention to their dogs whatsoever. Actually here's the kicker, I think they were hoping their dogs would attack mine. Thankfully I managed to extracate both of us before any real harm was done. Just a few snarls and a bit of shaping up. As a result of this and other similarish incidents I'm getting quite nervous walking the mutt. I know the law does not require dogs to be leashed but it does require 'effective control', however too often I come across people exercising NO control over their dogs. These are the people I'd like to see targeted by dog wardens, not decent responsible RB owners. Irresponsible owners are ruining my dog walking experience.

FoxyVixen

I've always believed that there isn't proper definition in regards to what constitutes as a secure muzzle.

The online dictionary states that it is a restraining appliance fitted over the animals snout to prevent it from biting/eating (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/muzzle). For me, the dogmatic headcollar works to this definition whilst allowing my Akita to adequately pant. However, should another dog attack, she is still prevented from defending herself.

Some muzzles just don't work with some dogs. I did attempt to use a Baskerville type (think that was what it was called) muzzle when I first got her, but it rubbed at her eyes and never fit her right. Therefore as a restricted breed owner I still complied with the law with a slightly alternative appliance, which worked far better whilst also giving me better control on her.

I think the only way to overcome this RB muzzle legislation and adequate dog ownership from people is to bring in a mandatory citizens dog test whereby both dog and person are tested - the first to display responsive behaviours to its owner whilst understanding breed specific mannerisms and the second to weasel out people who just don't understand the duties/care/training etc required of a person when owning a dog.

Yes I know it's a bit far fetched, but I'm over this idea that people genuinely think their child deserves to grow up with a dog, that a bitch NEEDS to have a litter, that dogs automatically know what's expected of them, that dogs understand english!!

There are plenty of overly qualified individuals in this country who could fill in such job requirements fulfilling these roles thereby assisting with the unemployment rate in this country!! More dog wardens I say so idiot owners can be effectively fined.

Nothing will ever happen in this country regarding adequate dog ownership and unfortunately, it is the dogs that are finding themselves on death row and inadequate owners walking away with nothing but a slap on their wrist. Whilst those of us who follow each and every piece of canine legislation find ourselves more out of pocket regarding licenses and constrained to more RB rules/regulations!!

Sorry for ranting. I find this a tiring issue in this country which can really be solved if the government just pulled up its socks.

Whispered

Gremlin, the two staffies should, by law have been muzzled and on a strong lead. Although I'm not ashamed to admit that we go looking for places we can have our dogs off the lead. I think it's very important for them to be honest, so we drive way up the mountains for secluded walking spots.

It's unfortunate that your dog walks are being ruined. :mad: Irresponsible dog owners are the bane of every other dog owners life! My estate has 2 small terriers who run riot all the time and attack my two on nearly every walk. All I can do now is keep them walking because I have approached the owners about the problem and was ignored. Then there are 2 labs who are out occasionally, who fight with the two terriers usually, although yesterday I saw one of them humping one of the smaller ones. It's ridiculous.

I think that if the law makers made sensible laws - then actually enforced them, everybody, RB owners and non RB owners would be a lot happier. The irresponsible owners then would be the ones we could all blame. But as it stands dogs wander, toilet everywhere, make noise and annoy people but the laws there to stop this happening are not being enforced. Yet a whole group of people who include responsible owners who would never let their dog be a nuisance as well as the types who do are being targeted.

I'd love to see what the list would be like if dog professionals, people who work with them day in day out with years of experience had come up with it.

Also, I think it's important to note (not that I'm questioning your ability to recognise a staffie BTW) a lot of incidents involving chunky dogs of any type are put down to staffies or pit-bulls despite the inability of a large portion of people to correctly recognise them from a picture. I own a cross breed, we think lab x staffie although it has be suggested it might be lab x boxer, the amount of people who think he's a pit-bull is huge!

I'm really glad to see non RB owners seeing the problem the responsible RB owners have with irresponsible ones giving our dogs a bad name. It's not so different to the problems all responsible dog owners have, except for the fact we're more heavily penalised.

Bullseye1

To be perfectly honest i have never understood why non RBs are allowed off lead in public places but RB ones are not. They are just as capable of causing an accident.

FoxyVixen

If not more so, because little "Fluffy" running head on full tilt at you teeth bared only wants to say "hello"!!

Idiot owners incapable of putting any training into their dog never mind a complete lack of understanding to canine behaviour!!

Gremlin

Whispered wrote: »

Gremlin, the two staffies should, by law have been muzzled and on a strong lead.

Yes they should. As responsible dog owners, we both know that. The two guys with the dogs were the sterotypical 'hard men'. You know the sort. Just using the dogs to inflate their own sense of toughness. The thing is in my experience The majority of RB owners are very good and responsible. It seems they realise that owning an RB is bigger responsibility. My biggest problem is with non RBs actually.

I'm not suggesting for a second that people should not be able to bring their dogs to the park and even let them off lead for a bit of a run. My problem is with those owners who either cant or wont control their dogs. In my experience if a dog is not trained to recall properly then if they are off lead they shouldn't be off lead.

The restrictive laws on RB's are caused by idiot owners and not the majority of dogs and their good owners. They have ruined it for everyone else. I know a guy who owns a large american pitbull. A real thing of beauty. This dog is huge, even though he is the softest sweetest dog, he has to be leashed and muzzled, which ths guy does always. However I cant help feeling how unfair that is when I see other dogs who would bite your arm off for fun and they have no restriction.

lrushe

Brought Brook out today with her Dogmatic on, not a muzzle but it's as far as I'm willing to go to comply with the law.
Broke my heart, she hates wearing it & gets really wound up so add in the heat of today & you get one stressed out, over heating, exhausted dog. So unfair when she's never put a foot wrong in her life.

I wonder how many of these 'hard men' with RBs are ever approached for having their dog unmuzzled, very few I'd bet. So frustrating & unfair!!!

Whispered

I've never been approached, and I don't look very hard :P, although I do live in a country-ish area. Actually I was speaking to a guard 2 days ago with the dogs, he pulled in and I thought "oh here we go" but he was asking about something else and said they were "grand fellas". I wonder if it was because I'm a girl on her own and they were walking/sitting like little gentlemen?.

Do you manage to get out and about with Brook without a lead for some exploring time? Does she enjoy it a lot more than a normal walk?

Interested to see if owners believe a dog can be totally happy spending their entire life on lead. I do think they can be, but I think it's a lot harder for their human to ensure they are. I also think that laws like the ones we have create a lot of problems, you end up with people going around with dogs who simply cannot, legally, be correctly socialised.

lrushe

I try to get her 'off the beaten track' as much as possible but I have a 15month old little boy now so alot of times I have to stick to places I can push a buggy so that's been limiting me lately.

Brook also has epilepsy so I find a good run helps keep her fits to a minium as it acts as a de-stressers. I'm hoping this walking with the Dogmatic doesn't stress her out enough to increase her fitting.

FoxyVixen

I'm lucky that my girl has no inhibitions a all wearing the dogmatic. She took to it like a duck to water, only 20mins to adjust when she realised she was out walking with it on and passed no heed.

However with it and her having a double coat, it is difficult to ensure she doesn't overheat too much on walks. Again I'm lucky living in the country having lakes/rivers for her to lie in if she cools down. I can tell if she needs a dip as she's learnt to inform me when she needs it. However on warmer days where I shorten the walk, I get a "ah come on" face She doesn't know what's right for her

My girl spends most her time on lead out of the house though I do have an open shed for her to explore as well as following her on lead around certain trails. That way I feel she's satisfied her desires as well as mental stimulation.

HOWEVER!!!

Even with a head collar people respond to her differently as well as her being incapable of fully communicating with her own kind. This further imposes my responsibility as an RB owner to ensure these interactions don't affect her view on her environment and interactions. Much like re-training of guide dogs in this country!

A lot of unnecessary responsibilities imposed on RB owners

DBB

Brook also has epilepsy so I find a good run helps keep her fits to a minium as it acts as a de-stressers. I'm hoping this walking with the Dogmatic doesn't stress her out enough to increase her fitting.

This brings up a potential point lrushe.... I know there's no mention of it in the legislation, and it probably has never been tested, but what if... And I'm warning you that I'm thinking aloud here!... What if an RB has a condition which its vet will attest to being put at risk by wearing a muzzle?
For instance, a dog with cardiac or respiratory problems would be seriously compromised by having to wear one.
It'd be interesting to see what'd happen, wouldn't it? Any takers? :-D

miller50841

I find this funny why aren't they showing force in the city there are drug dealers and addicts now out with bull dog's, German shepards and so on.
Dublin city and as usual no Garda presence so no change there.

lrushe

DBB wrote: »

This brings up a potential point lrushe.... I know there's no mention of it in the legislation, and it probably has never been tested, but what if... And I'm warning you that I'm thinking aloud here!... What if an RB has a condition which its vet will attest to being put at risk by wearing a muzzle?
For instance, a dog with cardiac or respiratory problems would be seriously compromised by having to wear one.
It'd be interesting to see what'd happen, wouldn't it? Any takers? :-D

It is a v.reasonable point, however if reasonable points were taken into account there wouldn't be this legislation in the first place.
Unfortunately dogs like this just aren't seen as important enough to create any grey areas for.

are you serious

miller50841 wrote: »

I find this funny why aren't they showing force in the city there are drug dealers and addicts now out with bull dog's, German shepards and so on.
Dublin city and as usual no Garda presence so no change there.

Miller, not all Gardaí would be aware of what breed is what. I can guarantee if you were to get 100 Gardaí and you then put in front of them a Dogue de Bordeaux and a Bull Mastiff you would be lucky if you could get 5 that could tell you which is which.
Then if even 5 had ever seen a Rhodesian Ridgeback i'd also be shocked, never mind getting one to tell you the difference between a Japanese Akita and an American Akita the later of which is not on the list...

Your comment says German Shepherd, fair enough they are easy to distinguish, but ya get my point.
Bull dogs are another tough one, so many bull breeds look alike when not familiar with or if you do not like dogs.

As for Gardaí not being there to stop drug dealing going on, out of interest do you report this when you see it?
Its not just the city centre that has drug issues or drug dealers with dogs...


DBB,
I would say in relation to your dog with the potential health issue, you would be told muzzle the dog or don't bring it out! Unless of course you were up before an understanding judge, then ya might get some kind of warning at best!

miller50841

are you serious wrote: »

Miller, not all Gardaí would be aware of what breed is what. I can guarantee if you were to get 100 Gardaí and you then put in front of them a Dogue de Bordeaux and a Bull Mastiff you would be lucky if you could get 5 that could tell you which is which.
Then if even 5 had ever seen a Rhodesian Ridgeback i'd also be shocked, never mind getting one to tell you the difference between a Japanese Akita and an American Akita the later of which is not on the list...

Your comment says German Shepherd, fair enough they are easy to distinguish, but ya get my point.
Bull dogs are another tough one, so many bull breeds look alike when not familiar with or if you do not like dogs.

As for Gardaí not being there to stop drug dealing going on, out of interest do you report this when you see it?
Its not just the city centre that has drug issues or drug dealers with dogs...


DBB,
I would say in relation to your dog with the potential health issue, you would be told muzzle the dog or don't bring it out! Unless of course you were up before an understanding judge, then ya might get some kind of warning at best!

I was standing beside where they were dealing on Eden Quay and yes reported it as I walked away from the dealers and the cops just smiled and drove off up the road.

mitosis

DBB wrote: »

This brings up a potential point lrushe.... I know there's no mention of it in the legislation, and it probably has never been tested, but what if... And I'm warning you that I'm thinking aloud here!... What if an RB has a condition which its vet will attest to being put at risk by wearing a muzzle?
For instance, a dog with cardiac or respiratory problems would be seriously compromised by having to wear one.
It'd be interesting to see what'd happen, wouldn't it? Any takers? :-D

If you can't comply with the law don't take it out in public?

Nody

DBB wrote: »

This brings up a potential point lrushe.... I know there's no mention of it in the legislation, and it probably has never been tested, but what if... And I'm warning you that I'm thinking aloud here!... What if an RB has a condition which its vet will attest to being put at risk by wearing a muzzle?
For instance, a dog with cardiac or respiratory problems would be seriously compromised by having to wear one.
It'd be interesting to see what'd happen, wouldn't it? Any takers? :-D

Told to muzzle it anyway or don't take it out; lets be honest here that dog care etc. is not exactly a top priority of the country administrators (as seen in the legislation passed and general lack of knowledge and/or care in general).

DBB

I think ye may be missing the point. It's hardly feasible not to bring the dog out... If anyone posted that here they'd be lynched for being cruel!
What I wondered was, and to be honest the question is somewhat rhetorical because nobody can answer it definitively, nor has it been tested in court that I know of, would it be possible for a dog to obtain a medical exemption from wearing a muzzle... When I say exemption, that means that the dog can go out in public unmuzzled.
There are some categories of RBs that are exempt, so there is, I'd suggest, a certain potential scope for medical exemption too. The owner would have to carry documentation to that effect obviously, but I don't necessarily think it's an idea that's dead in the water for some owners.

IvySlayer

I hate these laws to satisfy dogooders.

I own a Westie right now and would love a GSD one day, but what's the point considering the taboo

Aru

DBB wrote: »

This brings up a potential point lrushe.... I know there's no mention of it in the legislation, and it probably has never been tested, but what if... And I'm warning you that I'm thinking aloud here!... What if an RB has a condition which its vet will attest to being put at risk by wearing a muzzle?
For instance, a dog with cardiac or respiratory problems would be seriously compromised by having to wear one.
It'd be interesting to see what'd happen, wouldn't it? Any takers? :-D

A dog with serious heart or respiratory illness can still wear a well fitted basket muzzle as they allow them to pant so its a moot point....and I Have seen seriously compromised dogs in vets having to wear the tighter muzzles due to temperment so its hard to argue that point. if its a behavioural problem ie dog stresses with the muzzle on then training would be the solution not ignoring the law....so it would be very difficult to argue that case of some restricted breeds being exempted on medical grounds....especially as there are very few scenarios where a muzzle should not be used in the vets and these are near death scenarios..ie severe respiratory distress but that level of ill dog will not be out in public anyway....

DBB

I'm not saying to ignore the law! I saying that the owner could, possibly, get exemption from the law. I wish people would read what I'm saying, and not post stuff I have not said!
Whilst a dog who is compromised re respiratory problems, you might get away with short-term muzzling to stop the dog biting in a vet surgery. But let me assure you, I have lived with a dog with chronic respiratory problems, and muzzling would have caused major problems for him... Yet he could still go out for short walks, which he thoroughly enjoyed, for his last year of life.
I asked my vet would it be appropriate to muzzle a dog like this during exercise, and she utterly rejected the idea.
It was just an idea, as I said, but nobody here has convinced me that it would not be potentially acceptable in court if the vet went as expert witness. I don't suppose we'll ever find out.

are you serious

DBB,
Maybe it's that people are just not answering your situation the way you want the question answered...?

We can all only speculate in what may happen in court if an incident like this were to come up, the law is the law you've pointed this out many times in many different posts yet now your questioning it with a potential situation that hasn't been tested and your backing yourself as your saying its a rhetorical question and that nobody has given an answer that has you convinced..

if the dog is on the RB list it has to wear the muzzle health issues or not. Most people in this country are anti RB list dog

To these people these are horrible dogs and the judges of this country have to and can only act within the law, if your caught in a public place where the RB list law applies then plain and simple your playing with fire, vets letter or not.

There is a category that is exempt??
What category in the RB list are exempt, and what are they exempt from?

are you serious

I'll give you an example of something that could happen..

RB dog with respiratory problems gets all clear from vet to walk with no muzzle.

RB out on walk badly bites member of public.

Owner taken to court..

Owner gives medical report in to court judge on the day..

Plain and simple this RB dog/owner will be found at fault and I would bet everything I owned on that.

RB gets put down, owner then sues vet for stupid letter that contradicted RB list law, vet then has to pay compensation to dog owner, no vet ever again gives out a silly letter to an owner of a dog on the RB list ðŸ‘

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

DBB,
Maybe it's that people are just not answering your situation the way you want the question answered...?

We can all only speculate in what may happen in court if an incident like this were to come up, the law is the law you've pointed this out many times in many different posts yet now your questioning it with a potential situation that hasn't been tested and your backing yourself as your saying its a rhetorical question and that nobody has given an answer that has you convinced..

if the dog is on the RB list it has to wear the muzzle health issues or not. Most people in this country are anti RB list dog

To these people these are horrible dogs and the judges of this country have to and can only act within the law, if your caught in a public place where the RB list law applies then plain and simple your playing with fire, vets letter or not.

There is a category that is exempt??
What category in the RB list are exempt, and what are they exempt from?

Working/police/search and rescue dogs? Usually German Shepherds I would imagine. Sure the law is always above the law!

DBB

are you serious wrote: »

There is a category that is exempt??
What category in the RB list are exempt, and what are they exempt from?

If you read down to the bottom of the 1998 Regulations, you'll see the exempted dogs. Customs, guards, army, fisheries, search and rescue etc.

As for the owner of an RB waving a letter at court, I hadn't intended for my 'what if', thinking aloud theory to be interpreted as a sub-legal, private arrangement between a vet and an owner. There would, of course, have to be precedence set, in the form of case law. In the uk, their equivalent of RBs can be exempted from their ban under a number of circumstances, though in their case it is the difference between life and death for the dog. But it's the same idea, and I'm not aware of any owner running to sue the qualified behaviourist who assessed their dog for the exemption in cases where the dog ends up biting somebody post-assessment.
I think people seem to have taken up my theory as if it was a hard and fast suggestion, despite my initial post making it clear that it was just an idea, just a what if. But it was a what if based loosely on what happens in the uk.
Perhaps I just didn't make that clear enough.

FoxyVixen

Sorry if I'm throwing this off topic, but what is the job of a dog regarding the fisheries industry? I assume it's guarding the stocks in the warehouse? Can't really envisage a German Shephard or Ridgeback catching fish in its jaws for the fishermen :pac:

DBB

FoxyVixen wrote: »

Sorry if I'm throwing this off topic, but what is the job of a dog regarding the fisheries industry? I assume it's guarding the stocks in the warehouse? Can't really envisage a German Shephard or Ridgeback catching fish in its jaws for the fishermen :pac:

Lol, no, it's specifically the State fisheries service! Fisheries protection work on rivers, lakes, coast etc.