Horrible dog attack - are further laws required?

Twas Not

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/child-model-cameron-10-was-lucky-not-to-lose-an-eye-in-vicious-dog-attack-30561585.html

Horrible attack by a husky, should greater penalties be introduced for owners of unmuzzled dogs off the lead that are on the restricted dogs list?

brianon

Twas Not wrote: »

...should greater penalties be introduced for owners of unmuzzled dogs off the lead that are on the restricted dogs list?

Are such laws enforced ... ever ?

How far would anyone have to go to find a dog off it's lead and no owner in sight ? How far would you have to go to find an unmuzzled dog that should be muzzled ? How far would you have to go to step in some dog sh*t ?

Not f'ing far.

Rommie

Since when are huskies on the restricted breeds list? To be fair, there are absolutely no details of what happened in that story, no background on the dog or its owners or an explanation of what actually happened. How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't. All it says is that he was attacked. Obviously enough it's a horrible thing to happen to anyone but until we know what actually happened, its a bit unfair to start punishing all dogs

cocker5

In my opinion NO dogs should be outside their owners property unsupervised... EVER. and I am a dog owner

I am sick to death of the irish attitude to alllowing their dogs to roam... apart from them sh*tting eveywhere, it can lead to such horrific incidents...

Unfair on the child and also on the dog :mad:

andreac

Huskies are not on the restricted breeds list.

salamanca22

The restricted breeds list is a farce anyway as evidenced in this situation. Any dog can cause injury to someone and not just those ones that society deems dangerous enough to be on a list somewhere because some people do not train the dogs correctly.

I wonder though what the moments before the attack entailed. If the dog did not show signs of aggression in the past was something done to aggravate it this time? Not condoning the horrific attack but I am just wondering if there is another side to this coin.

brianon

Rommie wrote: »

How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't.

Wow. Such BS. Let's say the kid kicked the dog. That make it somehow ok for the child to get mauled ?

Even if a kid did kick a dog. Surely the owner would have the dog under control/lead to stop such a mauling ?

A dog on a lead ? Ha. Not likely.

Tombo2001

Rommie wrote: »

Since when are huskies on the restricted breeds list? To be fair, there are absolutely no details of what happened in that story, no background on the dog or its owners or an explanation of what actually happened. How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't. All it says is that he was attacked. Obviously enough it's a horrible thing to happen to anyone but until we know what actually happened, its a bit unfair to start punishing all dogs

No details except a picture of a child with scars all over his face.

I have news for you: it doesnt matter if the child kicked the dog in the face.

This dog was not under control, when the law very clearly says it should be under control.

Dog owners flaunt the law all the time. Go to any park in the country and you will see heaps of people walking dogs without leads. You will see dog crap all over the place.

Its an attitude thing that SOME, NOT ALL dog owner things have......"its my dog, so that makes it ok".

Tombo2001

salamanca22 wrote: »

The restricted breeds list is a farce anyway as evidenced in this situation.

I'd agree with that. A jack russell thats bad tempered is far more dangerous than an alsatian thats been well trained.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Wow. Such BS. Let's say the kid kicked the dog. That make it somehow ok for the child to get mauled ?

Even if a kid did kick a dog. Surely the owner would have the dog under control/lead to stop such a mauling ?

A dog on a lead ? Ha. Not likely.

There are plenty of dogs on leads, everywhere. I think you are suffering from an agenda induced willful blindness.

From: a dog owner who cleans her dog's sh1t and keeps her dog under control.

hidinginthebush

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I have news for you: it doesnt matter if the child kicked the dog in the face.

Except it does

Tombo2001

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There are plenty of dogs on leads, everywhere. I think you are suffering from an agenda induced willful blindness.

From: a dog owner who cleans her dog's sh1t and keeps her dog under control.

Hence my SOME, NOT ALL comment.

The are loads of dog owners who let their animals of the lead. That does not mean ALL, but there are certainly a lot of them.

As for the dog crap....I have my own theory on this, that a lot of elderly people who own dogs dont see anything wrong with letting them crap everywhere, they've done it this way all their lives and aint changing now. I know of several elderly people near me who let their dogs out to 'do their business' each night.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There are plenty of dogs on leads, everywhere. I think you are suffering from an agenda induced willful blindness.

From: a dog owner who cleans her dog's sh1t and keeps her dog under control.

What's 'plenty' ? I walk to and from my daughters school everyday. I see dogs crapping with no owners. I see dogs crapping with owners. IMO (and from what I have seen), I'd guess about 50% of dog owners are responsible dog owners.

Is that plenty ?

Tombo2001

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Except it does

Well you explain that to the judge.

Rommie

brianon wrote: »

Wow. Such BS. Let's say the kid kicked the dog. That make it somehow ok for the child to get mauled ?

Even if a kid did kick a dog. Surely the owner would have the dog under control/lead to stop such a mauling ?

A dog on a lead ? Ha. Not likely.

I didn't saw it was okay for the child to get mauled, where did I say that?? What I'm saying it's unfair to immediately assume all dogs are going to attack kids because we have no idea of the circumstances surrounding this incident. Yes the owner is at fault for letting the dog escape, and I am also sick of unleashed dogs roaming around doing what they want, but I also wish people in this country would teach their kids what is right and wrong when it comes to animals. For example, not approaching or handling an unknown dog.

cocker5

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Hence my SOME, NOT ALL comment.

The are loads of dog owners who let their animals of the lead. That does not mean ALL, but there are certainly a lot of them.

As for the dog crap....I have my own theory on this, that a lot of elderly people who own dogs dont see anything wrong with letting them crap everywhere, they've done it this way all their lives and aint changing now. I know of several elderly people near me who let their dogs out to 'do their business' each night.

In fairness…. I know a number of people (myself excluded) mid 30’s and 40’s who let their dogs out for a “run” each day… and these same people all have kids that play on the green – it’s ridiculous really

ignorance knows no age limit im afraid

brianon

What I'm saying it's unfair to immediately assume all dogs are going to attack kids because we have no idea of the circumstances surrounding this incident.

I disagree. Any dog off a lease poses a threat to a child/adult.

Tombo2001

Rommie wrote: »

I didn't saw it was okay for the child to get mauled, where did I say that?? What I'm saying it's unfair to immediately assume all dogs are going to attack kids because we have no idea of the circumstances surrounding this incident. Yes the owner is at fault for letting the dog escape, and I am also sick of unleashed dogs roaming around doing what they want, but I also wish people in this country would teach their kids what is right and wrong when it comes to animals. For example, not approaching or handling an unknown dog.

What you did say is that if somehow found out 'the full facts', and that maybe the child provoked the dog, that the dog might be somehow exonerated and not to blame.

Which is complete BS.

Except for this one thing, you are completely right in that it is never the dogs fault ever, its the owners fault.

OldNotWIse

Blah blah all dogs are evil, blah blah the streets are swimming in dog faeces, all dog owners are irrespnsible, blah de dah. Wont someone please think of the children. A dog doesn't attack unless provoked. Keep your child away from my dog, keep your dog away from my child. Dog sh1t, dog sh1t, dog sh1t...

These threads all follow the exact same script.

Everybody gets angry.

Nobody accommodates another's view.

Nothing is ever achieved.

Rommie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What you did say is that if somehow found out 'the full facts', and that maybe the child provoked the dog, that the dog might be somehow exonerated and not to blame.

Which is complete BS.

Except for this one thing, you are completely right in that it is never the dogs fault ever, its the owners fault.

'Since when are huskies on the restricted breeds list? To be fair, there are absolutely no details of what happened in that story, no background on the dog or its owners or an explanation of what actually happened. How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't. All it says is that he was attacked. Obviously enough it's a horrible thing to happen to anyone but until we know what actually happened, its a bit unfair to start punishing all dogs'

Is exactly what I said. Where does it say the dog would be exonerated if it was provoked?

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

What's 'plenty' ? I walk to and from my daughters school everyday. I see dogs crapping with no owners. I see dogs crapping with owners. IMO (and from what I have seen), I'd guess about 50% of dog owners are responsible dog owners.

Is that plenty ?

Are we taking to inventing statistics now to suit our agenda? Where are you walking that you see dogs crapping everywhere you go??

Tombo2001

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Blah blah all dogs are evil, blah blah the streets are swimming in dog faeces, all dog owners are irrespnsible, blah de dah. Wont someone please think of the children. A dog doesn't attack unless provoked. Keep your child away from my dog, keep your dog away from my child. Dog sh1t, dog sh1t, dog sh1t...

These threads all follow the exact same script.

Everybody gets angry.

Nobody accommodates another's view.

Nothing is ever achieved.

Well thats true, but what are you going to do. I rang the Gardai twice when I saw large dogs wandering around parks without leads and owners not bothered to watch them. They never showed up, werent interested....

What do you suggest?

Tombo2001

Rommie wrote: »

'Since when are huskies on the restricted breeds list? To be fair, there are absolutely no details of what happened in that story, no background on the dog or its owners or an explanation of what actually happened. How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't. All it says is that he was attacked. Obviously enough it's a horrible thing to happen to anyone but until we know what actually happened, its a bit unfair to start punishing all dogs'

Is exactly what I said. Where does it say the dog would be exonerated if it was provoked?

How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't.

It is the direct follow-on from this comment, as interpreted by me and several other posters.

Rommie

Tombo2001 wrote: »

How do we know the child didn't kick the dog in the head beforehand? We don't.

It is the direct follow-on from this comment, as interpreted by me and several other posters.

Well if you had read the rest of my comment, you would see i said 'it's a bit unfair to start punishing all dogs'. What I obviously meant was that we don't know if the dog was provoked or not, so we don't know why it attacked. Assuming it just did and assuming other dogs just will is completely unfair.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are we taking to inventing statistics now to suit our agenda? Where are you walking that you see dogs crapping everywhere you go??

Inventing statistics ? I said IMO about 50%. Just from what I've seen in my experience. Let's say my guess is way off (it could well be). There's still WAY too many dogs roaming around either with no owner or an owner who doesn't think their dog is a threat to anyone.

Only yesterday I walked my daughter and her friend to school. We got just outside the estate and this dog starts growling at the kids and heading their way. The kids are terrified. I turn to confront the dog and the owner (who's about 50 yards away) shouts down ... "He's grand he won't bite". Sums pretty much most of my experiences with dog owners up nicely.

Ofc there are many responsible owners out there but imo and in my experience they are outnumbered by the irresponsible.

I live in a village outside of Limerick. Great little community. Regular particapants in tidy towns. The regular route to school is littered with dog crap. There are 5 or 6 strays in the village. Saw one do a nice dump there this morning.

Lovely sunny morning, birds singing, dogs dumping.

OldNotWIse

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well thats true, but what are you going to do. I rang the Gardai twice when I saw large dogs wandering around parks without leads and owners not bothered to watch them. They never showed up, werent interested....

What do you suggest?

I never purported to have a solution to the packs of wild dogs and seas of sh1t in out streets, all I am saying is that bickering about it on boards tends to solve very little. I keep my dog under control. I clean up her sh1t (I think I have a poop bag in every pair of trousers I own!) and that's where my obligations end.

tbh I'm not really surprised the Gardai weren't interested. They likely had better things to be doing.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Inventing statistics ? I said IMO about 50%. Just from what I've seen in my experience. Let's say my guess is way off (it could well be). There's still WAY too many dogs roaming around either with no owner or an owner who doesn't think their dog is a threat to anyone.

Only yesterday I walked my daughter and her friend to school. We got just outside the estate and this dog starts growling at the kids and heading their way. The kids are terrified. I turn to confront the dog and the owner (who's about 50 yards away) shouts down ... "He's grand he won't bite". Sums pretty much most of my experiences with dog owners up nicely.

Ofc there are many responsible owners out there but imo and in my experience they are outnumbered by the irresponsible.

I live in a village outside of Limerick. Great little community. Regular particapants in tidy towns. The regular route to school is littered with dog crap. There are 5 or 6 strays in the village. Saw one do a nice dump there this morning.

Lovely sunny morning, birds singing, dogs dumping.

You are clearly a very unfortunate individual then.

And also, at the risk of pedantry, if something occurs 50% of the time, it doesn't "outnumber" what happens, by default the other 50% of the time.

Pat Mustard

Politicians often call for new laws when something bad happens.

They often fail to look at the existing law.

It's a waste of time introducing new laws for everything, when the issues are already covered but the law isn't adequately enforced.

The laws are already there. It's an enforcement issue.

Tombo2001

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I never purported to have a solution to the packs of wild dogs and seas of sh1t in out streets, all I am saying is that bickering about it on boards tends to solve very little. I keep my dog under control. I clean up her sh1t (I think I have a poop bag in every pair of trousers I own!) and that's where my obligations end.

tbh I'm not really surprised the Gardai weren't interested. They likely had better things to be doing.

That there is the thing.

You mightn't think its important.

But I have to bring my kids home from the park when this happens. I cant let them run around when a dog I know nothing about is wandering around.

OldNotWise, try to see other people's point of view.

Pat Mustard

The local authority deals with stray dogs. Not the guards.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You are clearly a very unfortunate individual then.

And also, at the risk of pedantry, if something occurs 50% of the time, it doesn't "outnumber" what happens, by default the other 50% of the time.

Thanks for the free maths lesson
I'll calm down a little and I'll just go back to my first post.

Who far would you need to travel to see a stray dog or a dog not properly supervised ?

brianon

The Mustard wrote: »

The local authority deals with stray dogs. Not the guards.

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

OldNotWIse

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That there is the thing.

You mightn't think its important.

But I have to bring my kids home from the park when this happens. I cant let them run around when a dog I know nothing about is wandering around.

OldNotWise, try to see other people's point of view.

Clearly they didnt either. Sorry but when resources are scarce I would prefer that real crime (as opposed to civil disobedience) is tackled first. There are people out there suffering at the hands of criminals - try to see things from other people's point of view. There are dog wardens for a reason and this is a more appropriate method of addressing the situation.

I dont think its not important, but a bit of perspective please. Is the owner of the dog there? Why not confront the owner instead of calling the guard? It's a quicker solution. If the dog is unaccompanied, call the dog warden. That's their job.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

Pat Mustard

brianon wrote: »

Does this really happen ? I'd love to think it's the case.

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

O...K.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

O...K.

You complain about uncontrolled dogs.

Someone tells you that there is a system in place for reporting this.

You feign disbelief that this system works.

Someone suggests you try it to see.

You feign confusion.

I am unsure of the appropriate response.

Kimbot

The Mustard wrote: »

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

Its up to the general public to report stray dogs but as you say people dont bother to do it. They are the ones that kick off when something like this story happens.

brianon

The Mustard wrote: »

My local authority has at least one dogcatcher. My understanding is that if you ring the local authority about a stray dog, the dogcatcher will come and get that dog.

It seems to me that people don't bother to make complaints to the local authority about stray dogs.

Done. Rang them there. They said I could drop a dog into them or they could let the warden know to pay the village a visit.

I'm not into picking up stray dogs into my car so I've asked them to get the warden to pay a visit. I'll see if it makes a difference.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You complain about uncontrolled dogs.

Someone tells you that there is a system in place for reporting this.

You feign disbelief that this system works.

Someone suggests you try it to see.

You feign confusion.

I am unsure of the appropriate response.

The "O...K" was in response to your tone/attitude. I rang them there.

DBB

Okay folks,
Yet another dog-attack thread is turning into a nasty, bitchy, off-topic argument.
The charter requires that posters treat each other with respect. If this thread continues on its present trajectory with people being disrespectful, disruptive and argumentative, there will be action taken.
Debate your points in a civil fashion, or don't post at all.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

The "O...K" was in response to your tone/attitude. I rang them there.

Fair enough. I dont have an attitude it was simply a suggestion. A simple one. What did they say? Incidentally, I think its better when the warden is called, even though I love dogs. It's a cruel and hard life being a stray and oftne they are better off I know most of them are pts but there is a chance of rescue I guess.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Fair enough. I dont have an attitude it was simply a suggestion. A simple one. What did they say? Incidentally, I think its better when the warden is called, even though I love dogs. It's a cruel and hard life being a stray and oftne they are better off I know most of them are pts but there is a chance of rescue I guess.

They just said I could drop the dogs in to them or they'd get the warden to visit the village. I just asked them to get the warden to visit.

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

They just said I could drop the dogs in to them or they'd get the warden to visit the village. I just asked them to get the warden to visit.

Really? That's odd. Not saying I dont believe you but I would have thought they would automatically call out.

brianon

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Really? That's odd. Not saying I dont believe you but I would have thought they would automatically call out.

Maybe if you called them you'd find out?

Only kidding

She simply said that I could drop a dog out to them or they'd get the warden to call out. She seemed to be pushing the first option but I dunno.

borderlinemeath

As I see it there's 3 areas of fault here.

I/ The owners of the dog. Although there is no detail regarding the circumstances of the attack - whether it happened on an open green area or in a garden (all it says is that the child was visiting his grandmother), the dog wasn't under control. If it was in a garden and the child was visiting that garden there should have been supervision. If the dog was out roaming they were at fault for this too. Fault can also lie with the owners for failing to socialise the dog adequately with children when they got the dog from the breeder.

2/ If there was provocation* by the child, directly or indirectly then some of the blame must lie with the child or his parents. A 10yr old is perfectly capable of understanding right from wrong, and parents should always warn their children of the dangers of approaching dogs that are completely unknown to them. Caution should even be used with dogs that they know from outside their own home, ie if it was the grandmothers dog.

3/ The breeder if it was any use at all should have socialised the dog from the day he was born to be familiar with children of all ages. Even people who don't live with children have relatives, or friends children or even neighbourhood children should visit and mingle with pups. The more a pup knows and sees when it is in the breeders home the more confident and less likely to behave aggressively out of fear when he is confronted with something unknown to him. But it's highly likely that this dog was probably from a puppy farm or a back yard breeder. If the owners lack the responsibility for basic supervision and let it roam free, it can assumed that there was little research done on purchase.

*By provocation, the child may not have had to even touch the dog, or kick it or pull it's ears, it may have simply been in the vicinity and the dog felt threatened, or it may have kicked a ball near the dog and the dog went to take the ball, but there's plenty of scenarios whereby the dog felt threatened and the child didn't heed the warning signs. And most adults can't read the warning signals that dogs display so what hope has a 10yr old who hasn't been warned to stay away from strange dogs:(

OldNotWIse

brianon wrote: »

Only kidding

She simply said that I could drop a dog out to them or they'd get the warden to call out. She seemed to be pushing the first option but I dunno.

I dont actually get what you were kidding about so dont worry

The reason I thought it was odd is because I assumed they would need to see and verify for themselves that the dog was roaming and also, as you have pointed out, these dogs can be dangerous so encouraging people to take them and transport them there themselves...I mean, the warden is trained and equipped to carry out this function.

OldNotWIse

borderlinemeath wrote: »

As I see it there's 3 areas of fault here.

I/ The owners of the dog. Although there is no detail regarding the circumstances of the attack - whether it happened on an open green area or in a garden (all it says is that the child was visiting his grandmother), the dog wasn't under control. If it was in a garden and the child was visiting that garden there should have been supervision. If the dog was out roaming they were at fault for this too. Fault can also lie with the owners for failing to socialise the dog adequately with children when they got the dog from the breeder.

2/ If there was provocation* by the child, directly or indirectly then some of the blame must lie with the child or his parents. A 10yr old is perfectly capable of understanding right from wrong, and parents should always warn their children of the dangers of approaching dogs that are completely unknown to them. Caution should even be used with dogs that they know from outside their own home, ie if it was the grandmothers dog.

3/ The breeder if it was any use at all should have socialised the dog from the day he was born to be familiar with children of all ages. Even people who don't live with children have relatives, or friends children or even neighbourhood children should visit and mingle with pups. The more a pup knows and sees when it is in the breeders home the more confident and less likely to behave aggressively out of fear when he is confronted with something unknown to him. But it's highly likely that this dog was probably from a puppy farm or a back yard breeder. If the owners lack the responsibility for basic supervision and let it roam free, it can assumed that there was little research done on purchase.

*By provocation, the child may not have had to even touch the dog, or kick it or pull it's ears, it may have simply been in the vicinity and the dog felt threatened, or it may have kicked a ball near the dog and the dog went to take the ball, but there's plenty of scenarios whereby the dog felt threatened and the child didn't heed the warning signs. And most adults can't read the warning signals that dogs display so what hope has a 10yr old who hasn't been warned to stay away from strange dogs:(

Good points. Dont forget though that not everyone buys from breeders. Lots of people re-home rescues and their pasts can be unknown or less than perfect and this can cause behavioural problems. Not giving dog or owner an excuse for anti-social behaviour but its something to bear in mind that extra work will be required to overcome these issues.

tenifan

Twas Not wrote: »

Horrible attack by a husky, should greater penalties be introduced for owners of unmuzzled dogs off the lead that are on the restricted dogs list?

Mandatory minimum sentences for the person responsible for the dog, increased if the dog causes damage/injury/death.

Tombo2001

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Clearly they didnt either. Sorry but when resources are scarce I would prefer that real crime (as opposed to civil disobedience) is tackled first. There are people out there suffering at the hands of criminals - try to see things from other people's point of view. There are dog wardens for a reason and this is a more appropriate method of addressing the situation.

I dont think its not important, but a bit of perspective please. Is the owner of the dog there? Why not confront the owner instead of calling the guard? It's a quicker solution. If the dog is unaccompanied, call the dog warden. That's their job.

Why not confront the owner? Because its not my job to enforce the law. And because if an individual is irresponsible as a dog owner, then they may well be irresponsible in other ways.

The comment you have made above just makes my blood boil. What is the point in having laws at all if they are not going to be enforced. Obeying the law is not an 'a la carte' list.

borderlinemeath

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why not confront the owner? Because its not my job to enforce the law. And because if an individual is irresponsible as a dog owner, then they may well be irresponsible in other ways.

The comment you have made above just makes my blood boil. What is the point in having laws at all if they are not going to be enforced. Obeying the law is not an 'a la carte' list.

Hold on a second though... what is your interpretation of the law?

You said:

I rang the Gardai twice when I saw large dogs wandering around parks without leads and owners not bothered to watch them.

Were the owners there?
How do you know they weren't watching them?
Were they RB dogs or were they just large dogs? Would it have mattered if it was small dogs?
Does the park have additional local council bye laws?

A dog off lead is not breaking the law. A dog that's not under effectual control is breaking the law. For a dog to be out of control is that the owner can't control it/has no recall on the dog or has deliberately let the dog roam.

Now in saying all that what annoys me is off lead dogs where their owner is ignoring that they are making a nuisance of themselves with other dogs or annoying people. But there are also situations where people get up in arms because a dog is off lead full stop. I've had people gesture towards me on the beach from a good distance away because they aren't happy with off lead dogs, even though they are not affecting them in any way and not breaking any laws.