Information requested regarding Animal control

lastidealist

Hello Legal Discussion Forum,

I have a matter I hope you are in a position to assist me in.
Earlier today my kitten was killed by my neighbours collie dog.
The kitten was on top of my garden shed , a structure well within my boundary wall, under supervision, when the dog jumped up, seized the kitten and proceed to kill her in the neighbours garden,
I witnessed all of this, and as the neighbour need not answer nor give any indication of being home I was forced to retrieve the kittens body.
What recourse is available to me?
I am concerned that the dog may well attack my other cat, a fully grown ragamuffin, or indeed myself or my elderly mother who also witnessed the gruesome event outlined above.
She is now afraid to enter her own garden.
I should also add they the offending dog has previously made several incursions into our garden, across a wall of several feet. The neighbour is aware of this behaviour.
I now feel compelled to call on your expertise. I am still to much of an animal lover to want the dog destroyed but surely I am not expected to endure this danger.
I would very much appreciate any information any of you care to give.
Many thanks for your time.

hullaballoo

Moderator:

I am going to have to put a warning here because I have seen where this question tends to go on this website.

There is to be absolutely no high-horse moralising in this thread. The OP is asking very specifically about legalities and procedures so the first sign of anything going beyond that will give rise to a forum ban of currently undetermined length.

Secondly, legal advice as defined by the forum charter is not to be given.

lastidealist

lastidealist wrote: »

Hello Legal Discussion Forum,

as the neighbour need not answer nor give any indication of being home I was forced to retrieve the kittens body.

Sorry, I just noticed a typo that I had better correct in case it confuses anyone:
The neighbour DID not answer. ( I'm on a ipod!)
As I've said, any insight is very much appreciated.

Little CuChulainn

You can make a report to the dog warden and the Gardaí. Dog warden for the neighbour failing to control the animal and Gardaí for criminal damage in the killing of your pet.

lastidealist

hullaballoo wrote: »

Moderator:

I am going to have to put a warning here because I have seen where this question tends to go on this website.

There is to be absolutely no high-horse moralising in this thread. The OP is asking very specifically about legalities and procedures so the first sign of anything going beyond that will give rise to a forum ban of currently undetermined length.

Secondly, legal advice as defined by the forum charter is not to be given.

Yes, thank you very much I read the rules and just want to clarify that I seek Legal Information rather than advice. I'm genuinely sorry if I've put a foot wrong here. If you check my history you'll see that this is my first ever post so I may very we'll be unaware of the nuances! Thanks again Moderater.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You can make a report to the dog warden and the Gardaí. Dog warden for the neighbour failing to control the animal and Gardaí for criminal damage in the killing of your pet.

Gardaí can only have an involvement if livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry or horses) is "worried" by dogs. But not cats or even other dogs that are worried by dogs in which case the issue would be civil (tort liability), not criminal.

With regards to the control of dogs, a dog warden has no jurisdiction and control of dogs dosn't apply when a dog is kept in the owners premises.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

Gardaí can only have an involvement if livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry or horses) is "worried" by dogs. But not cats or even other dogs that are worried by dogs in which case the issue would be civil (tort liability), not criminal.

It's damage to the ops property due to the reckless action of the neighbour. Seems to fall under the criminal damage act. I'm not aware of any case law to the contrary.

GM228 wrote: »

With regards to the control of dogs, a dog warden has no jurisdiction and control of dogs dosn't apply when a dog is kept in the owners premises.

Dangerous dog not under control. Statute doesn't say it has to be outside the home. In any case, if it managed to get a cat in the neighbours garden it could not have remained within the boundaries of the home.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/22/enacted/en/html#sec22

Kings Inns or bust

If it was my property it would now be an ex-dog.

goz83

The dog is a danger. Being an animal lover is not enough to protect a dangerous animal. Something must be done, as the dog is not contained. Reminds me of the woman who stopped her car on a motorway to help Ducks cross the road, only for a motorcyclist to crash into the rear of her car and die. Don't take chances with dangerous animals.

Kings Inns or bust

goz83 wrote: »

The dog is a danger. Being an animal lover is not enough to protect a dangerous animal. Something must be done, as the dog is not contained. Reminds me of the woman who stopped her car on a motorway to help Ducks cross the road, only for a motorcyclist to crash into the rear of her car and die. Don't take chances with dangerous animals.

While I quite agree, I would just add that a dog killing one kitten doesn't make it dangerous.

lastidealist

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

If it was my property it would now be an ex-dog.

Thanks for the laugh!
I just wouldn't have the heart though

lastidealist

goz83 wrote: »

The dog is a danger. Being an animal lover is not enough to protect a dangerous animal. Something must be done, as the dog is not contained. Reminds me of the woman who stopped her car on a motorway to help Ducks cross the road, only for a motorcyclist to crash into the rear of her car and die. Don't take chances with dangerous animals.

You make an exceedingly valuable point. Thank you for your advice

Kings Inns or bust

lastidealist wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh!
I just wouldn't have the heart though

Me either after the fact to be fair, much better reported to the proper authorities. If it's gaining access from the adjoining property are there any fences that can be bodged?

lastidealist

First if all many thanks to each if you for your insight
Might I ask is there a mechanism through civil law to compel the owner to ensure that the dog is tied/ mussled. (humanely of course). Perhaps the owner could be obliged to make a donation to the ISPCA ? Forgive me if I'm being naive but I like to see natural justice while ensuring the security of my property and all creatures within. Thanks again to everyone: you are all most helpful.

Kings Inns or bust

lastidealist wrote: »

First if all many thanks to each if you for your insight
Might I ask is there a mechanism through civil law to compel the owner to ensure that the dog is tied/ mussled. (humanely of course). Perhaps the owner could be obliged to make a donation to the ISPCA ? Forgive me if I'm being naive but I like to see natural justice while ensuring the security of my property and all creatures within. Thanks again to everyone: you are all most helpful.

Realistically the only civil recourse that is worth pursuing is

i) Small Claims Court for the loss of the cat - you might get some satisfaction of claiming a small sum here and donating it yourself

ii) A convoluted (IMHO) civil claim for nervous shock through a solicitor with a propensity for pursuing emergency vehicles.

A civil claim requiring something other than damages requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in something called equity - orders aren't made lightly by the courts, especially ones that require ongoing supervision. It would be impractical to get such an order in my lay, uneducated opinion. I welcome any correction there.

I think the guards and the dog warden are your best bets to be frank.

lastidealist

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Me either after the fact to be fair, much better reported to the proper authorities. If it's gaining access from the adjoining property are there any fences that can be bodged?

Regrettably the dog seems to be something if a modern day Houdini, jumping a thick stone wall five feet high. I am reluctant to create a further barrier for fear of antagonising the neighbour (ironically). Your quite right in that I shall have to report the whole sad matter although I hope that I can be forgiven for holding little faith in the police taking such a matter seriously. Besides the notion of taking criminal action is far from ideal. Your thoughts are appreciated and worthy of contemplated on my part. I'm obliged.

lastidealist

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Realistically the only civil recourse that is worth pursuing is

i) Small Claims Court for the loss of the cat - you might get some satisfaction of claiming a small sum here and donating it yourself

ii) A convoluted (IMHO) civil claim for nervous shock through a solicitor with a propensity for pursuing emergency vehicles.

A civil claim requiring something other than damages requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in something called equity - orders aren't made lightly by the courts, especially ones that require ongoing supervision. It would be impractical to get such an order in my lay, uneducated opinion. I welcome any correction there.

I think the guards and the dog warden are your best bets to be frank.

I just read your post:
This is very helpful material
The cheque is in the post!
You are a gentleman/ lady

Kings Inns or bust

lastidealist wrote: »

I just read your post:
This is very helpful material
The cheque is in the post!
You are a gentleman/ lady

Anything for someone who gets Monty Python references!

One_Of_Shanks

First of all sorry for your loss OP

I am not trying to be unkind in the slightest but its only fair to point out that sometimes nature is cruel and lets be honest, if your kitten reaches maturity it will kill birds (rabbits, etc too depending on area) on your side and other neighbours gardens too.

This is a horrible feeling for your neighbours if it happens. I have been on the receiving end of this too with cats.

It can work both ways and upset people on both sides of the fence (literally)

You should go talk to your neighbours asap. And then maybe you could agree on a suitable fence arrangement. (onus on them)
But please don't get the dog put down if there is a solution.

We moved here a year ago and we have a tiny wee dog but I made it my business to get a metal gate installed and then one day the neighbour told me that she had got through the wooden fence next to the gate, and chased her cat.
So I spent the next week hammering chicken wire into a wooden fence, and never heard from them since.

It's unfortunate about your cat but you need to talk to these people and try not to blame the animal. Blame the owners.

TheChizler

Cat proofing your own garden anyway would be wise if you plan on having them in future. It would prevent them from getting into accidents on the road, going into the neighbours garden themselves, or just getting lost. But that's getting slightly off topic.

lastidealist

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

First of all sorry for your loss OP

I am not trying to be unkind in the slightest but its only fair to point out that sometimes nature is cruel and lets be honest, if your kitten reaches maturity it will kill birds (rabbits, etc too depending on area) on your side and other neighbours gardens too.

This is a horrible feeling for your neighbours if it happens. I have been on the receiving end of this too with cats.

It can work both ways and upset people on both sides of the fence (literally)

You should go talk to your neighbours asap. And then maybe you could agree on a suitable fence arrangement. (onus on them)
But please don't get the dog put down if there is a solution.

We moved here a year ago and we have a tiny wee dog but I made it my business to get a metal gate installed and then one day the neighbour told me that she had got through the wooden fence next to the gate, and chased her cat.
So I spent the next week hammering chicken wire into a wooden fence, and never heard from them since.

It's unfortunate about your cat but you need to talk to these people and try not to blame the animal. Blame the owners.

Your quite right. Many thanks.

lastidealist

TheChizler wrote: »

Cat proofing your own garden anyway would be wise if you plan on having them in future. It would prevent them from getting into accidents on the road, going into the neighbours garden themselves, or just getting lost. But that's getting slightly off topic.

Your right - I'll have to get busy!
Thank you

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's damage to the ops property due to the reckless action of the neighbour. Seems to fall under the criminal damage act. I'm not aware of any case law to the contrary.

A person is only reckless if they have foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it. Can someone reasonably forsee their animal would kill another especially if the only previous indications the owner had was limited to incursions?

The legal test for recklessness is a subjective one. As per People vs Murray [1977] IR360, DPP vs McGrath, Cagney [2008] 2 IR 111 (SC) and summarised nicely per a UK House of Lords Case Regina vs G & another [2003] UKHL 50:-

A person acts recklessly with respect to:

(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist;

(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;

and it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

Can an owner of a dog be reckless if they weren't aware of a risk of their dog killing another animal? Would knowing your dog can escape your garden construde knowing your dog could harm another animal?

However it's really irrelevant as cases with animals and liability are based around negligence or strict liability and not recklessness. Negligence would not satisfy the legal test of recklessness required for criminal damage.

Strict liability for a dogs actions come into play only when another person or livestock are injured or killed, but when other animals not defined under livestock (or property) are injured, damaged or killed the rules of scienter come into play (the dog owners previous knowledge of the cause which led to the damage complained of, or rather their previous knowledge of a state of facts which it was their duty to guard against and their omission to do which has led to the injury complained of).

Liability will also depend on if an animal is wild or domestic. Owners of wild animals have strict liability whilst owners of domestic animals are only liable if it is shown the animal had vicious, mischievous or fierce propensity (Fitzgerald vs ED & AD Cooke Bourne Farms [1964] 1 QB 249, 270), based on the principle or scienter. Cats and dogs have previously been ruled to be domestic animals in any case law.

Scienter must be alleged by a plaintiff in the case of a domestic animal (Kelly vs Wade [1848] 12 ILR 424), and that a prior knowledge of scienter by the owner of the animal must be evident (Quinn vs Quinn 39 ILTR 163 and Howard vs Bergin O'Connor and Co. [1925] 2 IR 110. 118) before the owner is liable. In other words the dog must have shown the same propensity previously, hence the "every dog gets one bite" saying.

Evidence of a prior vicious, mischievous or fierce propensity must be specific and not general. It must relate to the specific animal and not the general characteristics of the breed and the particular damage alleged. Hence why someone may not be liable for a dog killing an animal when they have a prior knowledge of it escaping as escape and killing are not the same propensity. (Glanville L. Williams, Liability for Animals).

Even when there is proof of scienter an owner is not liable when the act is provoked (Andrew vs Kilgour [1910] 13 WLR 608, 19 Man LR 545). I wonder could a cat sitting on a shed roof be considered provocation under the rule? I have a number of cats and I'm convinced they just sit on the roof of my shes laughing and taunting my neighbours dogs!

Contributory negligence can also reduce or omit liability of the owner I would imagine. Could someone allowing their cats outside on a shed when they know a dog can easily jump a 5ft wall and kill their cat be negligent for allowing it be in the position to be killed in the first place?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Dangerous dog not under control. Statute doesn't say it has to be outside the home. In any case, if it managed to get a cat in the neighbours garden it could not have remained within the boundaries of the home.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/22/enacted/en/html#sec22

Dog wardens don't have powers under Section 22 as it carries no offences. S22 applies to dangerous dogs which are not under proper control, however under Section 9 (1)(a) control of dogs does not apply to the premises of the owner. The provisions of S22 are applied by the District Court, not dog wardens. Anybody can complain to a court for it's application.

Control of dogs

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than—


(a) the premises of the owner, or


(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or


(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,


unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.


(2) If a dog worries livestock, the owner or any other person in charge of the dog shall be guilty of an offence unless it is established that at the material time the dog worried the livestock for the purpose of removing trespassing livestock and that having regard to all the circumstances the action was reasonable and necessary.

If S22 is used in relation to an attack of a dog it only applies when a dog attacks a person or livestock as per S22 (5) and cats for example don't fall into the definition of livestock.

Another issue is "dangerous dogs" is not defined in law here (unlike in the UK) and it would be up to a court to decide if a dog is dangerous or otherwise. As another poster has stated the act of killing a cat or even incursions may not constitute "dangerous".

Also we don't know if on this occasion the dog actually left the neighbours garden or did it simply jump high enough to catch the cat, as the OP stated it jumped and killed on it's own side of the fence, was the cat hanging over from the shed etc.

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Realistically the only civil recourse that is worth pursuing is

i) Small Claims Court for the loss of the cat - you might get some satisfaction of claiming a small sum here and donating it yourself

ii) A convoluted (IMHO) civil claim for nervous shock through a solicitor with a propensity for pursuing emergency vehicles.

A civil claim requiring something other than damages requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in something called equity - orders aren't made lightly by the courts, especially ones that require ongoing supervision. It would be impractical to get such an order in my lay, uneducated opinion. I welcome any correction there.

I think the guards and the dog warden are your best bets to be frank.

The small claims procedure will only deal with "minor" damage to property, would the death of an animal be considered minor?

Has such a claim ever come before it I wonder?

lastidealist

That was a most thorough post!
I think I need an aspirin.
I can confirm that the cat was within my property at the time (and under supervision) with the dog bounding over a wall then onto a shed not connected to said wall, grabbing the cat and then retiring into the neighbours garden.
Many thanks.

Discodog

Thanks to GM228 for an excellent explanation. I have a Greyhound & as I know that she would chase a cat, she is walked on strong lead. But one day the metal catch broke.

Luckily she didn't catch the cat but it proves that the unexpected can happen. It was, what should be the strongest part of the lead, that broke.

A kitten is especially vulnerable because it hasn't learnt to fear dogs. I feel for you OP but I don't think that you have any recourse.

The dog owner can hardly be seen as negligent if the dog was contained, to the best of their knowledge.

In my area dogs frequently appear in people's gardens, poop on their lawns & chase cats.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

A person is only reckless if they have foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it. Can someone reasonably forsee their animal would kill another especially if the only previous indications the owner had was limited to incursions?

The legal test for recklessness is a subjective one. As per People vs Murray [1977] IR360, DPP vs McGrath, Cagney [2008] 2 IR 111 (SC) and summarised nicely per a UK House of Lords Case Regina vs G & another [2003] UKHL 50:-

Can an owner of a dog be reckless if they weren't aware of a risk of their dog killing another animal? Would knowing your dog can escape your garden construde knowing your dog could harm another animal?

Can you know if this is the first such instance with the animal? No. Do you know who does keep records of such reports? Gardaí do. Even if you are correct and the Gardaí have never received a report in relation to the dog before, is it not just as important important to make the first report?

GM228 wrote: »

Dog wardens don't have powers under Section 22 as it carries no offences. S22 applies to dangerous dogs which are not under proper control, however under Section 9 (1)(a) control of dogs does not apply to the premises of the owner. The provisions of S22 are applied by the District Court, not dog wardens. Anybody can complain to a court for it's application.

If S22 is used in relation to an attack of a dog it only applies when a dog attacks a person or livestock as per S22 (5) and cats for example don't fall into the definition of livestock.

Another issue is "dangerous dogs" is not defined in law here (unlike in the UK) and it would be up to a court to decide if a dog is dangerous or otherwise. As another poster has stated the act of killing a cat or even incursions may not constitute "dangerous".

Also we don't know if on this occasion the dog actually left the neighbours garden or did it simply jump high enough to catch the cat, as the OP stated it jumped and killed on it's own side of the fence, was the cat hanging over from the shed etc.

Section 22 does not only include dogs who come under section 9, it simply states that dogs that come under section 9 fall under section 22. As you say, the term "dangerous dog" so you cannot state that a dog warden has no power under section 22. If the warden believes it is a dangerous dog then they may bring the matter before a court and let the court make the decision.

Kings Inns or bust

GM228 wrote: »

The small claims procedure will only deal with "minor" damage to property, would the death of an animal be considered minor?

Has such a claim ever come before it I wonder?

It means in regard to quantum not level of damage. A scratch to a Ming Dynasty vase would be minor in the sense it's a scratch, but would be way out of the jurisdiction of the small claims procedure.

Getting completely whamed and charging into my garden fence, dousing it in petrol and singing Kumbaya as it burns, isn't minor damage to the fence but it's minor in the sense that the fence is worth a couple of hundred (or so) quid.

lastidealist

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Getting completely whamed and charging into my garden fence, dousing it in petrol and singing Kumbaya as it burns, isn't minor damage to the fence but it's minor in the sense that the fence is worth a couple of hundred (or so) quid.

I'll just assume that your speaking from experience.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Can you know if this is the first such instance with the animal? No. Do you know who does keep records of such reports? Gardaí do. Even if you are correct and the Gardaí have never received a report in relation to the dog before, is it not just as important important to make the first report?

That's a good point.

Another issue I can think of is that cases with animals and liability are based around the mens rea of negligence or strict liability and not recklessness.

Negligence would not satisfy the legal test of recklessness required for criminal damage.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

]Section 22 does not only include dogs who come under section 9, it simply states that dogs that come under section 9 fall under section 22. As you say, the term "dangerous dog" so you cannot state that a dog warden has no power under section 22. If the warden believes it is a dangerous dog then they may bring the matter before a court and let the court make the decision.

The point I was making is S22 gives nobody (including dog wardens) any powers, it simply allows any person to apply to the District Court if they believe a dangerous dog is not properly under control.

It gives the District Court powers to issue an order to either ensure a dangerous dog is under proper control or for a dog to be disposed of.

S22 is for civil proceedings, not criminal enforcement. Dog wardens are responsible for criminal enforcement, for example they could seize what they consider a dangerous dog if they suspect they are not under control or may worry a person or livestock, but the same applies to any dog, but as a warden can't enter a dwelling and as control of dogs dosn't apply to the owners premises their powers don't cover a dog not under control in the owners garden.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

That's a good point.

Another issue I can think of is that cases with animals and liability are based around the mens rea of negligence or strict liability and not recklessness.

Negligence would not satisfy the legal test of recklessness required for criminal damage.




The point I was making is S22 gives nobody (including dog wardens) any powers, it simply allows any person to apply to the District Court if they believe a dangerous dog is not properly under control.

It gives the District Court powers to issue an order to either ensure a dangerous dog is under proper control or for a dog to be disposed of.

S22 is for civil proceedings, not criminal enforcement. Dog wardens are responsible for criminal enforcement, for example they could seize what they consider a dangerous dog if they suspect they are not under control or may worry a person or livestock, but the same applies to any dog, but as a warden can't enter a dwelling and as control of dogs dosn't apply to the owners premises their powers don't cover a dog not under control in the owners garden.

Are dog wardens not the most frequent applicants under Section 22?

Discodog

I have heard, purely anecdotally, that the opinion of the Dog Warden carries a lot of weight which is worrying because they have no qualifications. They can't assess the temperament of a dog or assess if it is dangerous. Even worse I know of two cases where they impounded dogs & then refused access for a qualified behaviourist to assess them.

One Warden told me that if a dog bites someone, even an intruder in your home or garden, it is automatically deemed dangerous & will be seized & put down.

I don't know why Councils don't employ commission based wardens given the massive number of owners who don't even put a collar on their dog let alone a tag, microchip & license.

Little CuChulainn

Discodog wrote: »

I have heard, purely anecdotally, that the opinion of the Dog Warden carries a lot of weight which is worrying because they have no qualifications. They can't assess the temperament of a dog or assess if it is dangerous. Even worse I know of two cases where they impounded dogs & then refused access for a qualified behaviourist to assess them.

One Warden told me that if a dog bites someone, even an intruder in your home or garden, it is automatically deemed dangerous & will be seized & put down.

I don't know why Councils don't employ commission based wardens given the massive number of owners who don't even put a collar on their dog let alone a tag, microchip & license.

Probably the same reason they don't employ commission based firemen or Gardaí.

Discodog

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Probably the same reason they don't employ commission based firemen or Gardaí.

I would equate failing to have a collar etc on your dog as equivalent to a parking offence in that it doesn't need proof or investigation other than a photograph. Owners deliberately avoid anything that will identify their dog so that they can deny all knowledge when they allow it to cause trouble.

If the Councils employed more wardens & motivated them, they would easily recoup the cost in fines. The ongoing renewal of licenses would provide future revenue for years to come.

My local Warden hates doing door to door & asking for licenses. The figures for convictions are very low.

2015 411 prosecutions & 107 convictions

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are dog wardens not the most frequent applicants under Section 22?

I have no idea, I don't think those statistics are available?

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

I have heard, purely anecdotally, that the opinion of the Dog Warden carries a lot of weight which is worrying because they have no qualifications. They can't assess the temperament of a dog or assess if it is dangerous.

Of the 34 councils only 15 directly employ their wardens, weather or not they receive training is unknown, the rest operate their warden service through the likes of the ISPCA who do receive training.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

Of the 34 councils only 15 directly employ their wardens, weather or not they receive training is unknown, the rest operate their warden service through the likes of the ISPCA who do receive training.

Even the ISPCA are not fully trained in Canine behaviour & Pounds run by them such as Clare have had some of the worst rehoming figures. Basic training will focus on health & safety ie how to catch a dog without being bitten.

The number of dogs that end up being classified as dangerous, it should be owners but it's always the dogs, is pretty small & it wouldn't be difficult to get them professionally assessed.

The dog in the OP's case did nothing wrong. The owner not only failed to secure it but we might argue that jumping onto a neighbouring roof is unexpected, but they didn't socialise it with other animals. It's also highly likely that, in common with a lot of dogs, it doesn't get sufficient exercise & is left in the garden.

Failure to adequately exercise a dog is, subject to interpretation, an offence under the Animal Heath & Welfare Act but we are very unlikely to see any prosecutions.

Kings Inns or bust

It's all well and good wanting better training for dog wardens, a laudable goal; however one needs to look at how they get involved. If someone's dog is being a nuisance then they've brought it upon themselves, and unfortunately the animal. There are far better ways to spend public money than better training and pay for dog wardens I'm afraid.

Discodog

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It's all well and good wanting better training for dog wardens, a laudable goal; however one needs to look at how they get involved. If someone's dog is being a nuisance then they've brought it upon themselves, and unfortunately the animal. There are far better ways to spend public money than better training and pay for dog wardens I'm afraid.

So how about prosecuting the owner instead of just killing the dog?

Humanity Dick Martin of Ballynahinch bought a donkey into Court in 1800's. Surely we have progressed since then.

We wouldn't be paying for the training. If they work better they will collect lots more in fines.

Kings Inns or bust

Discodog wrote: »

So how about prosecuting the owner instead of just killing the dog?

Humanity Dick Martin of Ballynahinch bought a donkey into Court in 1800's. Surely we have progressed since then.

We wouldn't be paying for the training. If they work better they will collect lots more in fines.

We've never been able to make a fine system work, this would be no different I'm afraid.

I'm all for prosecuting the owners.

Little CuChulainn

Discodog wrote: »

I would equate failing to have a collar etc on your dog as equivalent to a parking offence in that it doesn't need proof or investigation other than a photograph. Owners deliberately avoid anything that will identify their dog so that they can deny all knowledge when they allow it to cause trouble.

If the Councils employed more wardens & motivated them, they would easily recoup the cost in fines. The ongoing renewal of licenses would provide future revenue for years to come.

My local Warden hates doing door to door & asking for licenses. The figures for convictions are very low.

2015 411 prosecutions & 107 convictions

You don't read Terry Pratchett I take it.

GM228 wrote: »

I have no idea, I don't think those statistics are available?

Unlikely.

Discodog

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

We've never been able to make a fine system work, this would be no different I'm afraid.

I'm all for prosecuting the owners.

Simply go door to door & check the dogs for a microchip. Takes seconds. Then issue fine.

Discodog

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You don't read Terry Pratchett I take it.



Unlikely.

No ☺️

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

The small claims procedure will only deal with "minor" damage to property, would the death of an animal be considered minor?

Has such a claim ever come before it I wonder?

It means in regard to quantum not level of damage. A scratch to a Ming Dynasty vase would be minor in the sense it's a scratch, but would be way out of the jurisdiction of the small claims procedure.

Getting completely whamed and charging into my garden fence, dousing it in petrol and singing Kumbaya as it burns, isn't minor damage to the fence but it's minor in the sense that the fence is worth a couple of hundred (or so) quid.

I missed this, but I think you have that wrong.

Yes your principle of quantum is correct, but not it's application in relation to claims through the SCP for damage caused to property.

Quantum relates to the level of damages, not the level of damage caused.

As per my post you replied to the SCP deals with minor damage caused to property, not minor damages in relation to damage to property. The rules are clear that it's for minor damage caused to property, damage and damages are not the same.

So to put two simplified scenarios as per your vase and fence scenario.

Scenario 1:-
Minor damage caused resultig in major damages (i.e more than €2000)

Scenario 2:-
Major damage caused resulting in minor damages. (i.e less than €2000)

Scenario 1 obviously is beyond the procedure because the damages are more than the €2000 limit of the procedure, but scenario 2 I a believe is also beyond the scope due to the major level of damage. Whilst is satisfies the €2000 limit, it dosn't satisfy the "minor damage caused to property" requirement.

Obviously minor damage caused is up for debate but on a scale of damage in relation to property I don't see how anybody could see death of an animal as being considered minor. It may present minor damages, but it is minor damage caused?

Kings Inns or bust

While I don't wish to off hand you're splitting hairs over semantics. Once the case is simple and under the limit imposed it's within the jurisdiction of the SCP. The wording is purely there (IMHO) to avoid complex cases or ones over the threshold. In the alternative, the death of a pet is (again IMHO) minor property damage. It may sound heartless but emotion needs to be removed from the equation. Is it a simple set of facts? Yes, the kitten was on the OP's property and the dog was out of the control of the owners. Is that kitten worth less that €2000 in damages? Again yes.

Now, again IIRC, it's within the remit of the registrar to reject any case at her complete discretion but there's no procedural reason to here.