Dog bite on private property

lifeandtimes

****Disclaimer hypothetical situation

Hi everyone ,

I was going to my local shopping centre tonight and i noticed a man tie up his doberman right outside the entrance to the centre,im a dog person and am aware of the breed and the law requiring said breed to be muzzeled,the dog in this case was not.

Now the entrance leads onto a car park which is owned by the centre and all is part of private property.

If someone was to be bit by the dog is the centre liable including the owner or the owner only?

And just to make it more interesting say security were alerted to the presence of the unmuzzled dog on their property,did nothing and someone was bit,who would be liable? Owner or centre for negligence?

All hypothetical as said before just curious

Thanks

nuac

Mod
Thanks - interesting questions. All views welcome

Cookie_Monster

From a common sense point of view surely the lead is only x long and would require you to be close than that to get bitten therefore entirely your fault...

Not that that would have any reflection in the 'legal world'

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

D Trent

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

From a common sense point of view surely the lead is only x long and would require you to be close than that to get bitten therefore entirely your fault...

Not that that would have any reflection in the 'legal world'

Nah f**** that if my child was bit by that dog while we walked past and me pushing a shopping trolley meaning I was restricted in preventing dog bite I would hold dog owner accountable

nuac

Re report - it is a hypothetical situation so I let it run
nuac

lifeandtimes

Yes so the dog is tied up outside the entrance to a pole while the owner is inside doing a shop or what ever.

I would personally hold the owner responsible,if you have a breed of this nature you must follow the law so going to a "private property " without following laws and muzzeling the dog is the owners negligence and such their fault.

In an extreme example if someone brought a gun to a shopping centre in their bag(while legally owning it) and it discharges accidently and hits someone they are liable.

But i am open to debate on this

Staff of the center being advised,unless specifically advised in their training of such cases i dont see them being liable

But again i am open to debate

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NUTLEY BOY

Reasonable foreseeability is exactly what it turns on as per Fred.

I make two assumptions for purposes of discussion ;

1. The dog has bitten someone.
2. Security are effectively acting as the agents of the occupiers of the centre - otherwise you have another dimension of liability as between security and occupiers in contract and so son.

Otherwise, first thoughts turn to duty of care.

The owner or custodian of the dog has a duty of care to the general public to so manage his dog as not to cause injury or damage. Add to that the fact that there is a virtually strict liability if the dog did bite i.e. if the dog did bite a presumption of liability would arise against the owner / custodian.

The occupiers / operators of the centre would have a duty of care to those coming on to the premises. Their duty of care is to see that those coming on to the premises are reasonably safe in doing so.

If security were advised of the presence of the dog they would then have a duty of care on the basis of knowledge of the existence of a danger.

Even if security were not aware of the presence of the dog danger they could still have a duty of care if they ought reasonably to have known of the presence of the hazard.

I would not attach any relevance to the point about the dog being tied to a pole outside the boundary of the premises. If the dog was a hazard to people entering or leaving through the entrance/exit that is a matter to which the occupiers would be required to direct their minds.

Next, you ask what a reasonable person in the position of the occupiers / security would do or be expected to do on becoming aware of the danger ? If they fail in this respect they may well be negligent.

Anyone bitten by the dog might well sue the occupiers and the owner as co-defendants as they may both have been negligent in their respective ways.

Ultimately, the disposition of the case would turn very much on the evidence.

Little CuChulainn

What would security be expected to do in such a case? Is calling the dog warden sufficient?

NUTLEY BOY

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What would security be expected to do in such a case? Is calling the dog warden sufficient?

IMHO calling the warden would probably not be sufficient.

Security would probably be expected to take such steps as would be adequate to prevent jaws and pedestrians meeting until the hazard was removed. I would construe that as acting reasonably and adequately.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

If security knew, there would be issues with reasonable foreseeability.

But what exactly are the security supposed to forsee? Knowing there is a dog on the premises and forseeing there is a danger are two different things, a test of reasonable foreseeability of a danger may not be satisfied.

I think for reasonable foreseeability to be applicable a reasonable person would have to reasonably forsee a danger that is likely to be present due to the dogs presence, not merely a possible danger. In other words the presence of a dog could be considered a danger, but is not likely to be a danger. The occupier has a duty to take such care as is reasonable to ensure a visitor does not suffer any injury, but the issue is would a reasonable person do anything about or be expected to do anything about a dog which is present when there isn’t likely to be any danger. I would imagine the principles of scienter and a prior knowledge of a dogs propensity would also have to come into play in relation to any reasonable foreseeability or negligence in relation to the common duty of care concerning an occupier and dogs.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Reasonable foreseeability is exactly what it turns on as per Fred.

I make two assumptions for purposes of discussion ;

1. The dog has bitten someone.
2. Security are effectively acting as the agents of the occupiers of the centre - otherwise you have another dimension of liability as between security and occupiers in contract and so son.

Otherwise, first thoughts turn to duty of care.

The owner or custodian of the dog has a duty of care to the general public to so manage his dog as not to cause injury or damage. Add to that the fact that there is a virtually strict liability if the dog did bite i.e. if the dog did bite a presumption of liability would arise against the owner / custodian.

The occupiers / operators of the centre would have a duty of care to those coming on to the premises. Their duty of care is to see that those coming on to the premises are reasonably safe in doing so.

There are very few defences to strict liability on the dog owners part, contributory negligence or the wrongful act of a third party being the ones that comes to mind. A dog owner (or the occupier) may not be liable (or at least only be partly liable) if the dogs bite was a result of provocation – in other words there was negligence on the plaintiffs part.

An issue here also is what level of duty of care applies? Is someone who is just using the car park considered a visitor or a recreational user (or even a trespasser under certain circumstances) depending on the reason they (the plaintiff) are in the car park. If not a visitor then the common duty of care would not apply.

Also worth noting that the duty of care required can be reduced by the occupier to a duty not to intentionally injure or act in reckless disregard by using a reasonable notice to that effect provided reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the attention of people using the area. So that raises the questions as to what is “reckless disregard” and what’s the test for such?

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If security were advised of the presence of the dog they would then have a duty of care on the basis of knowledge of the existence of a danger.

Even if security were not aware of the presence of the dog danger they could still have a duty of care if they ought reasonably to have known of the presence of the hazard.

I’m not sure I’d agree with this, knowing a dog is on a premises does not necessarily equate to a knowledge of a danger.

Obviously there could be issues with the breed of the dog – would the occupier be reasonably expected to know the breed type or the conditions attached such as muzzling etc? Could they say they were ignorant of the law in that regard – I know it’s held that ignorance of the law is not a defence, but that is usually when ignorance is the defence for a criminal charge used by the accused, can that come into play under actions of Tort, and if it did wouldn’t that ignorance only apply to the dog owner and not the occupier?

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Next, you ask what a reasonable person in the position of the occupiers / security would do or be expected to do on becoming aware of the danger ? If they fail in this respect they may well be negligent.

I think this is what it would all boil down to, first we need to establish if the occupier could reasonably forsee any danger and then what they would be reasonably expected to do about it.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What would security be expected to do in such a case? Is calling the dog warden sufficient?

IMHO calling the warden would probably not be sufficient.

Security would probably be expected to take such steps as would be adequate to prevent jaws and pedestrians meeting until the hazard was removed. I would construe that as acting reasonably and adequately.

Again I think the issue is what would a reasonable person be expected to do given the circumstances, would a person who sees a dog tied up or simply present be reasonably expected to warn someone of a potential danger – unless the dog was acting in a threatening manner I don’t think there would be any such expectation of a reasonable person.




Finally, I’ll throw this one into the discussion.

As security staff are usually independent contractors of the occupier of a premises as opposed to direct employees, using S7 of The Occupiers' Liability Act 2005 could an occupier be exempted from liability in this situation due to the security staff’s actions?

7.—An occupier of premises shall not be liable to an entrant for injury or damage caused to the entrant or property of the entrant by reason of a danger existing on the premises due to the negligence of an independent contractor employed by the occupier if the occupier has taken all reasonable care in the circumstances (including such steps as the occupier ought reasonably to have taken to satisfy himself or herself that the independent contractor was competent to do the work concerned) unless the occupier has or ought to have had knowledge of the fact that the work was not properly done.

It’s not clearly defined what exactly an independent contractor is for the purposes of the act or what work they are supposed to be doing for the occupier – my guess it’s in relation to building work, but it could be tested – i.e the work not being properly done is their duties required and the duty of care that work requires.


If the occupier is deemed not liable and the dog owner can't provide a defence of a wrongful act, negligence of a third party or contributory negligence to reduce or eliminate the liability then the dog owner is liable under the strict liability of S21 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986. Problem then could be recovery of any damages, the doctrine of the man of straw.

Pucking Fissed Off

The whole scenario seems to hinge on the breed of the dog. there is no mention of an aggression from the dog.

If the dog wasn't a listed/restricted breed how would the scenario play out?

Is there a requirement on the part of the property owner to enforce the law on their premises?
If I inform security that there is a car with no insurance in the car park are they required to report it to the authorities?
If they fail to do so and the car is involved in a crash before leaving the car park will the management be liable for the damage?

Surely the liability/responsibility lies with the Car/dog owner is these situations.

Discodog

Tying a dog to a pole is not keeping it under control. Anything could happen. The dog could chew through the lead, a child could untie it, a child could taunt the dog resulting it in defending itself.

The dog warden would be applicable as would the Gardai as it is a legal requirement to keep such a dog muzzled - even though it's a stupid, outdated law.

The only area of doubt would be the fact that it's private land however it is a public space.

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

The dog warden would be applicable as would the Gardai as it is a legal requirement to keep such a dog muzzled - even though it's a stupid, outdated law.

The only area of doubt would be the fact that it's private land however it is a public space.

So muzzling an American Pit Bull Terrier, a Bull Mastiff, a Doberman Pinscher, an English Bull Terrier, a German Shepherd, a Japanese Akita, a Japanese Tosa, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a Rottweiler, a Staffordshir Bull Terrier or a Ban Dog is a stupid outdated law? They are potentially dangerous dogs which are statistically more dangerous and more likely to maim or kill than any other breed even when properly trained, muzzling is there for a very good valid reason.

There's no area of doubt on private land which is a public place as the law is specifically for any public place.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

So muzzling an American Pit Bull Terrier, a Bull Mastiff, a Doberman Pinscher, an English Bull Terrier, a German Shepherd, a Japanese Akita, a Japanese Tosa, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a Rottweiler, a Staffordshir Bull Terrier or a Ban Dog is a stupid outdated law? They are potentially dangerous dogs which are statistically more dangerous and more likely to maim or kill than any other breed even when properly trained, muzzling is there for a very good valid reason.

There's no area of doubt on private land which is a public place as the law is specifically for any public place.

Yes totally because breed specific legislation doesn't work which is why countries like the UK are going to drop it. Breeds aren't the problem, owners are & in this case the owner is negligent. But we have already discussed this at length.

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

Yes totally because breed specific legislation doesn't work which is why countries like the UK are going to drop it. Breeds aren't the problem, owners are & in this case the owner is negligent. But we have already discussed this at length.

Why does breed specific legislation not work?

Statistically those dogs are more dangerous which is no doubt in part to blame with their owners and breeding habits, however many of these types of dogs have an inborn desire to attack and kill due to their fight and high prey drive, even with the best training sometimes those desires are merely suppressed and not eradicated. Surely any such legislation is a benefit as it reduces potential dog bites/attacks.

I have not heard anything about the UK dropping breed specific legislation, infact there has been many campaigns to change UK dog legislation and following the Netflix documentary Death Row Dogs this has increased ten fold leading to a UK Government Petition for a chnage to dangerous dogs legislation and very recently the UK Government has confirmed it will not be changing the dangerous dogs legislation.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

Why does breed specific legislation not work?

Statistically those dogs are more dangerous which is no doubt in part to blame with their owners and breeding habits, however many of these types of dogs have an inborn desire to attack and kill due to their fight and high prey drive, even with the best training sometimes those desires are merely suppressed and not eradicated. Surely any such legislation is a benefit as it reduces potential dog bites/attacks.

I have not heard anything about the UK dropping breed specific legislation, infact there has been many campaigns to change UK dog legislation and following the Netflix documentary Death Row Dogs this has increased ten fold leading to a UK Government Petition for a chnage to dangerous dogs legislation and very recently the UK Government has confirmed it will not be changing the dangerous dogs legislation.

We have had this discussion & it's off topic. You didn't get it the last time so you won't now.

Mod
I do not recall this being discussed on LD since I became a mod here.

As this is a hypothetical thread about a dog bite I think GM228's post is reasonable, on topic and open for discussion here

evolving_doors

What if security maintain that they are not in a position to judge if the dog was a particular breed and acting dangerously. Prior to the bite had there been any indication that the dog was acting in a dangerous manner?
Are security being negligent by not going to search for owner... Based on information from stranger?

Discodog

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What if security maintain that they are not in a position to judge if the dog was a particular breed and acting dangerously. Prior to the bite had there been any indication that the dog was acting in a dangerous manner?
Are security being negligent by not going to search for owner... Based on information from stranger?

If security see a dog tied up they should wait by the dog & then explain to the returning owner that they shouldn't leave it unattended. The same applies to dogs left in cars during warm weather. There also seem to be a lot of people who use shopping centre carparks as somewhere to let the dog out for a crap.

The shopping centre would be sued because they are a more likely source of compo and costs.

And if the case was hard enough they would probably be found liable because they didn't have a secure boundary around the dog tie-up area, plus warning notices and a repetitive loudspeaker warning customers to keep away in irish and english...

Mod

Less of the sarcasm pls

recedite

Consensus seems to be that the owner is to blame, for leaving a restricted breed tied up with a piece of string in a public space without a muzzle.

But as he is a penniless homeless guy, the shopping centre gets sued instead

Suppose we run the scenario again, but this time the dog is a labrador (because statistically responsible for more dog bites than any other breed)
The dog takes a bite out of a random passing shopper for no apparent reason...

Discodog

recedite wrote: »

Consensus seems to be that the owner is to blame, for leaving a restricted breed tied up with a piece of string in a public space without a muzzle.

But as he is a penniless homeless guy, the shopping centre gets sued instead

Suppose we run the scenario again, but this time the dog is a labrador (because statistically responsible for more dog bites than any other breed)
The dog takes a bite out of a random passing shopper for no apparent reason...

Dogs never bite without a reason. But under Irish law if your dog bites anyone, even a burglar, it could be in serious trouble. The owner will be fine as we prefer to execute the dog rather than pursuing the owner.

GM228

recedite wrote: »

Consensus seems to be that the owner is to blame, for leaving a restricted breed tied up with a piece of string in a public space without a muzzle.

An owner is always liable under strict liability, only the wrongful act or negligence of a third party changes that.

recedite wrote: »

But as he is a penniless homeless guy, the shopping centre gets sued instead

Anybody can sue anybody, but just because someone does or does not have the ability to pay any damages does not affect liability. You can't make a third party pay damages when they are shown not to be liable, which leaves the poor homeless dog owner fully liable as any owner would be - the man of straw.

recedite wrote: »

Suppose we run the scenario again, but this time the dog is a labrador (because statistically responsible for more dog bites than any other breed)
The dog takes a bite out of a random passing shopper for no apparent reason...

The breed of dog is irrelevant, strict liability applies to any breed and not just breeds which require muzzles, (again except due to the wrongful act or negligence of a third party).

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

Dogs never bite without a reason

Many dogs do due to possessiveness of something or a prey drive.

GM228

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What if security maintain that they are not in a position to judge if the dog was a particular breed and acting dangerously. Prior to the bite had there been any indication that the dog was acting in a dangerous manner?
Are security being negligent by not going to search for owner... Based on information from stranger?

I can't see how they could be negligent unless they personally witness a violent propensity, case law has shown when it comes to a dog attack a person is not liable for damages where there is no previous known propensity obviously (with the exception of an attach on a person or livestock - then the owner is liable without a previous knowledge of such).

The words of a stranger or anyone else is merely hearsay.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

Many dogs do due to possessiveness of something or a prey drive.

Yes both due to bad owners as these conditions aren't there at birth. The dog breed is an issue. If a Labrador bites then there is a case to decide the degree of liability etc.

If it is an unmuzzled restricted breed then the owner has immediately committed a criminal offence.

redbel05

Discodog wrote: »

Yes both due to bad owners as these conditions aren't there at birth. The dog breed is an issue. If a Labrador bites then there is a case to decide the degree of liability etc.

If it is an unmuzzled restricted breed then the owner has immediately committed a criminal offence.

With regards to leaving a dog unaccompanied, the Control of Dogs Act doesn't specify only particular breeds, or dogs with a history of aggression. It states that ALL dogs should be kept under effectual control of the owner when outside the premises of the owner. Leaving the dog unaccompanied, regardless of whether it is tied up, is not effectual control, and by doing so, the owner is commiting an offence.

Discodog

A person could argue whether tieing the dog controlled it. They can't argue about no muzzle

redbel05

Discodog wrote: »

A person could argue whether tieing the dog controlled it. They can't argue about no muzzle

No, they cant argue about no muzzle, but they cant argue about accompanying it either. The act states "effectual control" AND accompanied by owner If the dog bit someone, then I don't think you can say it was effectual control.

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

If a Labrador bites then there is a case to decide the degree of liability etc.

Strict liability applies to any breed, no case is required to decide any degree of liability for a specific breed.

The only defence to strict liability as already mentioned is the wrongful or negligence of a third party irrespective of breed type and muzzling requirements, only then would degree of liability possibly become an issue.

Dyr

GM228 wrote: »

They are potentially dangerous dogs which are statistically more dangerous and more likely to maim or kill than any other breed even when properly trained, muzzling is there for a very good valid reason.

Muzzling is in place because we followed the UKs lead (as always) in introducing legislation after they had a scare campaign by the tabloid press

Some of the statistics you mention about these breeds being more likely to kill or maim than any other would be nice. In your own time.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

Strict liability applies to any breed, no case is required to decide any degree of liability for a specific breed.

The only defence to strict liability as already mentioned is the wrongful or negligence of a third party irrespective of breed type and muzzling requirements, only then would degree of liability possibly become an issue.

Yes & I stated that earlier. The point that I was making is that there could be an argument as to what constitutes effective control. I have already said that a dog tied up, in a public place, is not under control however I can see that someone might argue otherwise.

The case with the restricted breed is more clear cut because of the legal requirement to muzzle.

Discodog

Bambi wrote: »

Muzzling is in place because we followed the UKs lead (as always) in introducing legislation after they had a scare campaign by the tabloid press

Some of the statistics you mention about these breeds being more likely to kill or maim than any other would be nice. In your own time.

Beware of what you ask for There was a recent megathread on Boards where this poster & others argued endlessly that some breeds were more dangerous than others despite little valid evidence to back it up.

DBB

Discodog wrote: »

I have already said that a dog tied up, in a public place, is not under control however I can see that someone might argue otherwise.

They can argue it all they like, but the law clearly states the owner/person in charge of dog must not allow a dog in a public place unless the owner/person in charge "accompanies it AND keeps it under effectual control" (emphases mine). So let them argue that the tied-up dog was under effectual control, but the law is clear that their arguments cannot be entertained.
In my experience at least, "effectual control" is interpreted such that if a dog does manage to bite or cause harm to a person, then by definition it was not under effectual control.
This means that even in a situation where a dog is on-lead with its owner, and manages to, for example, jump up on a passer-by and bite them, the dog is not deemed to have been under effectual control.

Discodog wrote: »

Yes both due to bad owners as these conditions aren't there at birth.

With respect Discodog, I'm all for arguing the facts and I realise you're passionate about dogs getting a better deal, but it doesn't help at all if you come out with bluff like the above to argue your points.
To say that possessiveness and prey drive are not inherent behaviours in a dog is utterly preposterous, and you won't find a single behavioural scientist nor applied behaviourist to agree with you... These are absolutely hard-wired behaviours which every dog (and indeed every predatory mammal) is born with... They are indeed critical for the survival of the animal in the wild (a wild/feral dog's got to eat and stop others robbing his spoils), but they are also behaviours which can cause conflict with humans in the domesticated dog. But I can categorically say, neither behaviour is due to owners, good or bad.
To people who are qualified in the field of dog behaviour, it is teeth-grindingly frustrating to see people arguing points that are demonstrably wrong. It really weakens the case being put forward in defence of dogs by those who keep the known facts to the forefront.

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

They can argue it all they like, but the law clearly states the owner/person in charge of dog must not allow a dog in a public place unless the owner/person in charge "accompanies it AND keeps it under effectual control" (emphases mine). So let them argue that the tied-up dog was under effectual control, but the law is clear that their arguments cannot be entertained.
In my experience at least, "effectual control" is interpreted such that if a dog does manage to bite or cause harm to a person, then by definition it was not under effectual control.
This means that even in a situation where a dog is on-lead with its owner, and manages to, for example, jump up on a passer-by and bite them, the dog is not deemed to have been under effectual control.




With respect Discodog, I'm all for arguing the facts and I realise you're passionate about dogs getting a better deal, but it doesn't help at all if you come out with bluff like the above to argue your points.
To say that possessiveness and prey drive are not inherent behaviours in a dog is utterly preposterous, and you won't find a single behavioural scientist nor applied behaviourist to agree with you... These are absolutely hard-wired behaviours which every dog (and indeed every predatory mammal) is born with... They are indeed critical for the survival of the animal in the wild (a wild/feral dog's got to eat and stop others robbing his spoils), but they are also behaviours which can cause conflict with humans in the domesticated dog. But I can categorically say, neither behaviour is due to owners, good or bad.
To people who are qualified in the field of dog behaviour, it is teeth-grindingly frustrating to see people arguing points that are demonstrably wrong. It really weakens the case being put forward in defence of dogs by those who keep the known facts to the forefront.

I should of made the comment clearer as it was in response to someone who believes that some breeds are inherently more dangerous than others.

Of course a dog has those characteristics at birth but it is the responsibility of owners to ensure that their dog is properly trained & socialised.

If you believe, as you have posted that this behaviour is not the fault of the owner then my small faith in the new breed of behaviourists is justified.

A dog owner has a responsibility to monitor their dog's behaviour & correct it. What has always & continues to damage the cause of dog welfare is the, at times, constant bitching between one "welfare" group & another.

As the previous posts are totally off topic let's address the real situation.

So dog bites person outside a shop. Security will do nothing except call the Guards & they won't do anything without the dog warden. The owner will have plenty of time to collect their dog & disappear.

If the owner can be traced & the Guards are bothered to try then the owner will deny that it's their dog. If, in the unlikely event that it's microchipped, the owner will say that his nephew took the dog out without his knowledge.

There may be a prosecution. A dog rescue owner was ordered to pay €7500 in compensation for a dog bite whilst the dog was on a lead. But that individual was well known & easily traceable.

gctest50

Discodog wrote: »

........As the previous posts are totally off topic let's address the real situation.

So dog bites person outside a shop. Security will do nothing except call the Guards & they won't do anything without the dog warden. The owner will have plenty of time to collect their dog & disappear.
.................

It would be more likely Security will look back through cctv and see who left the dog there and what happened

DBB

Discodog wrote: »

Of course a dog has those characteristics at birth but it is the responsibility of owners to ensure that their dog is properly trained & socialised.

But, but, but... You said in absolute black and white that dogs are not born with these behaviours... Now you say they are? So which is it? What if I hadn't come along and pointed it out? Would you have got around to clarifying that you actually meant the opposite of what you typed?
Bear in mind that nobody can debate any point logically with someone if they're going to change their mind when they're pulled up on factual inaccuracies. It's those factual inaccuracies used in an attempt to win an argument that make the professionals' teeth grind, as it weakens their case when they bring proposals to government to get laws changed.

If you believe, as you have posted that this behaviour is not the fault of the owner then my small faith in the new breed of behaviourists is justified.

You mean the behaviourists with post-grad qualifications and professional certification that's only awarded when the applicant has demonstrated the knowledge, ability and experience to diagnose and treat behavioural problems?
Or do you mean the self-titled Cesar Milan-esque dog whispering types?
If the latter, rest assured that when I refer to the behaviourists who'd take issue with your claims, I'm only referring to the former... Qualified and accredited folk who have earned the right to use the title
I'm not going to get into whether possessive behaviour or predatory drive is the owner's "fault", firstly because it's so much more complex than that, and secondly because you always seem determined to blame "bad" owners for everything. Thirdly, I just can't take you seriously with you changing what you meant to the opposite of what you said.
I've laid out my stall now to pull you up on the mistakes you made in your posts, I'm not going to get into one of your endless circular arguments with you changing your mind at every turn

A dog owner has a responsibility to monitor their dog's behaviour & correct it. What has always & continues to damage the cause of dog welfare is the, at times, constant bitching between one "welfare" group & another.

Of course owners are responsible for their dog's behaviour in public... It's legislated for. But what, in the name of all that's holy, have "welfare" groups got to do with (a) this thread, or (b) my post???
We're talking about the legalities of a hypothetical scenario regarding dog control here, not the black abyss that constitutes the politics some welfare groups embroil themselves in!

As the previous posts are totally off topic let's address the real situation.

"The real situation" that's actually a hypothetical one? And one about which you've already been shown to have shakey knowledge about? Everything you're saying about "the real (hypothetical) situation" is based on "what ifs", based on <<Mod deletion>> suppositions of how these things are dealt with by those that enforce and interpret the available legislation. Your suppositions are in marked contrast to how I've seen things pan out in real "real situations".


Mod
Pls keep it civil

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

But, but, but... You said in absolute black and white that dogs are not born with these behaviours... Now you say they are? So which is it? What if I hadn't come along and pointed it out? Would you have got around to clarifying that you actually meant the opposite of what you typed?
Bear in mind that nobody can debate any point logically with someone if they're going to change their mind when they're pulled up on factual inaccuracies. It's those factual inaccuracies used in an attempt to win an argument that make the professionals' teeth grind, as it weakens their case when they bring proposals to government to get laws changed.



You mean the behaviourists with post-grad qualifications and professional certification that's only awarded when the applicant has demonstrated the knowledge, ability and experience to diagnose and treat behavioural problems?
Or do you mean the self-titled Cesar Milan-esque dog whispering types?
If the latter, rest assured that when I refer to the behaviourists who'd take issue with your claims, I'm only referring to the former... Qualified and accredited folk who have earned the right to use the title
I'm not going to get into whether possessive behaviour or predatory drive is the owner's "fault", firstly because it's so much more complex than that, and secondly because you always seem determined to blame "bad" owners for everything. Thirdly, I just can't take you seriously with you changing what you meant to the opposite of what you said.
I've laid out my stall now to pull you up on the mistakes you made in your posts, I'm not going to get into one of your endless circular arguments with you changing your mind at every turn



Of course owners are responsible for their dog's behaviour in public... It's legislated for. But what, in the name of all that's holy, have "welfare" groups got to do with (a) this thread, or (b) my post???
We're talking about the legalities of a hypothetical scenario regarding dog control here, not the black abyss that constitutes the politics some welfare groups embroil themselves in!



"The real situation" that's actually a hypothetical one? And one about which you've already been shown to have shakey knowledge about? Everything you're saying about "the real (hypothetical) situation" is based on "what ifs", based on your own jaded and usually biased suppositions of how these things are dealt with by those that enforce and interpret the available legislation. Your suppositions are in marked contrast to how I've seen things pan out in real "real situations".

You critise what ifs & continue to make assumptions about me. I recently heard a qualified behaviourist on a radio phone in. I was so in disagreement with her replies that I emailed the podcast to a friend. He was equally bemused & he is the professor at one of the most respected Universities for studying canine behaviour.

So rather than posting endless off topic paragraphs why don't you give us the benefit of your knowledge on the topic that being tying up a dog in a public place & not canine behaviour or me

Discodog

gctest50 wrote: »

It would be more likely Security will look back through cctv and see who left the dog there and what happened

We agree ☺️. Cctv might overcome the nephew argument.

The incident that I referred to earlier took 5 years to prosecute. The Guards had a warrant for the dog's execution but he mysteriously disappeared.

GM228

Bambi wrote: »

Muzzling is in place because we followed the UKs lead (as always) in introducing legislation after they had a scare campaign by the tabloid press

Some of the statistics you mention about these breeds being more likely to kill or maim than any other would be nice. In your own time.

You could start with the 11 year US statistics on deaths by dog breed:-

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/11-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Or the CDCs 1979-1996 statistics:-

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm


You will see half of our dogs (Pitbull, Doberman, Rottweiller, Akita, German Shephard and Mastif) appear on their statistics, others have appeared on statistics from other countries, with no relevant statistics or studies here we rely on international statistics and studies.

DBB

Discodog wrote: »

So rather than posting endless off topic paragraphs why don't you give us the benefit of your knowledge on the topic that being tying up a dog in a public place & not canine behaviour or me

I already have in my first post
Twas yourself who brought up your version of dog behaviour, I merely corrected your mistakes, and made no personal jibes at you... Just your words
Does your friendly professor churn out this new breed of behaviourists for a living, I wonder?!

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

Muzzling is in place because we followed the UKs lead (as always) in introducing legislation after they had a scare campaign by the tabloid press

Some of the statistics you mention about these breeds being more likely to kill or maim than any other would be nice. In your own time.

Beware of what you ask for There was a recent megathread on Boards where this poster & others argued endlessly that some breeds were more dangerous than others despite little valid evidence to back it up.

Not sure if that is in reference to me as you said "this poster", and you previously said we had that discussion and I didn't get it the first time.

Just to be clear I have never argued one way or another that any particular breed is more dangerous than any other and have never engaged in any thread on such a topic, I have simply stated that statistically they are more likely to attack and that has been within this thread only, so unless I have taken you up wrong then I think your confusing me with another poster.

foggy_lad

Discodog wrote: »

We agree ☺️. Cctv might overcome the nephew argument.

The incident that I referred to earlier took 5 years to prosecute. The Guards had a warrant for the dog's execution but he mysteriously disappeared.

Any Garda worthy of a warrant card would simply take control of the tied up dog in the car park and hand it over to the dog warden for destruction if it had bitten someone. Many Gardai carry Batons and Tazers so controlling the dog or disabling it would be easy enough if required.

seamus

foggy_lad wrote: »

Any Garda worthy of a warrant card would simply take control of the tied up dog in the car park and hand it over to the dog warden for destruction if it had bitten someone. Many Gardai carry Batons and Tazers so controlling the dog or disabling it would be easy enough if required.

Such an action is not supported by the law. Seizure of the dog is permitted if necessary, but it still requires a court order for it to be destroyed.

The Gardai would also be bound by various legislation which would make it illegal to use a baton or a taser on a dog for any reason other than to protect the public.

Dyr

GM228 wrote: »

You could start with the 11 year US statistics on deaths by dog breed:-

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/11-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Or the CDCs 1979-1996 statistics:-

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm


You will see half of our dogs (Pitbull, Doberman, Rottweiller, Akita, German Shephard and Mastif) appear on their statistics, others have appeared on statistics from other countries, with no relevant statistics or studies here we rely on international statistics and studies.

You could start with that, but then you could explain why they have "pitbull" in quotation marks or some such. I don't have to open the link to know that.

And then you'd have to explain why the CDC who compiled those stats are strongly against breed specific legislation.