Should the dog be destroyed?

gabsdot40

A 4 year old boys gets bitten badly by a dog. He has to have surgery and spends 3 nights in hospital.

Should the dog be destroyed and if the owners refuse to do anything about it can the guards get involved?

Yes and yes

GM228

Is this a hypothetical for legal discussion or a debate on the rights and wrongs of putting down an animal I wonder, can see where this thread could go....

Noo

Under what circumstances was the boy bitten?

GM228

BrownFinger wrote: »

Yes and yes

Yes or no to both questions is very much dependent on the circumstances.

Ashbx

There is no straight yes or no answer here....all depends on what actually happened .

Its never ok for a dog to attack a child but majority of the time the child themselves has done something to provoke it and kids don't know how to pick up warning signs from dogs, which then usually leads to a bite.

Guards are not usually much assistance in these cases unfortunately.

Andy Magic

For all we know here the kid could have pulled the dogs tail, it got a fright and it re-acted.

I don't get peoples obsession with killing things!

I regularly get young kids trying to touch my dogs while I'm walking them and the parents just look on clueless..

There could be a whole other story to this thread..

jcd5971

If a dog bites it goes down simple.

Guards will get involved especially for a child, also if reported to the local council they will have the dog destroyed, also owner of dog is liable for legal recourse IF this happened outside the home, or inside the owners home with permission to be there.

I know animal lovers find it cruel but a dog that bites simply must be put down, if it's an animal that bites a child it must be annihilated from existence.

Ionised

jcd5971 wrote:

I know animal lovers find it cruel but a dog that bites simply must be put down, if it's an animal that bites a child it must be annihilated from existence.

In this age of equality I wonder if it should work equally the other way round?

jcd5971

Ionised wrote:

In this age of equality I wonder if it should work equally the other way round?

You'll have to explain that one I'm afraid I'm quite lost by what you mean?

daheff

jcd5971 wrote: »

If a dog bites it goes down simple.

Guards will get involved especially for a child, also if reported to the local council they will have the dog destroyed, also owner of dog is liable for legal recourse IF this happened outside the home, or inside the owners home with permission to be there.

I know animal lovers find it cruel but a dog that bites simply must be put down, if it's an animal that bites a child it must be annihilated from existence.

I think your wording is poor, but sentiment is right.

A dog that attacks a child should be put down. Its too dangerous for society to have this animal free to potentially attack a child again. What if this animal attacks and kills another child in the future? Would the person who decided not put the animal down be charged in anyway?


I'm a dog lover and don't like to see dogs /cats/animals destroyed for no reason. But unfortunately I can't see a circumstance where this animal can be deemed to be of no future danger to society

ED E

gabsdot40 wrote: »

A 4 year old boys gets bitten badly by a dog. He has to have surgery and spends 3 nights in hospital.

Should the dog be destroyed and if the owners refuse to do anything about it can the guards get involved?

Noo wrote: »

Under what circumstances was the boy bitten?

Assuming this is based on the liveline story here:
http://pca.st/ZJxe

Boy A(Victim) is playing with Boy B(Dog "Owner"). Boy B startles the dog and it bites Boy A. All occurs in Boy B's own garden.

According to Liveline the dog warden cant get involved when its on private property.

Farmer_3650

*Should the Dog be put down?*
Should the Dog be destroyed sounds a bit extreme.

123shooter

daheff wrote: »

I think your wording is poor, but sentiment is right.

A dog that attacks a child should be put down.

Why please explain?

Its too dangerous for society to have this animal free to potentially attack a child again.

Do we know it was free? It could have been in someones house?

What if this animal attacks and kills another child in the future?

Animals (and we are also one) rarely if ever bite or attack for no reason. Nearly all animals including human kind will try to avoid conflict.

I'm a dog lover and don't like to see dogs /cats/animals destroyed for no reason. But unfortunately I can't see a circumstance where this animal can be deemed to be of no future danger to society

So you think all police dogs should be put down automatically as well then?

NUTLEY BOY

I heard an identical scenario aired this week on radio.

In that case the dog bit a child inside the dog owner's property.
The child seems to have been legitimately present in the property.
The child was injured by an actual bite as distinct from a friendly nip and did receive medical attention.
The child's mother reported it to the Gardaí and the Dog Warden.

The Gardaí did nothing as it was a "civil matter".
The Dog Warden seems to have declined to act because the dog was inside a private residence as distinct from a public place.

As far as blaming a child for a dog biting them goes that is a non-runner. We have long since dispensed with the notion that every dog is entitled to his first bite. Responsibility for a dog bite is virtually a strict liability as far as civil law is concerned. The onus to retain control rests quite heavily on the dog owner.

What I did not hear is the breed of the dog i.e a banned breed, a dog on the schedule of types to which additional restrictions apply or an otherwise usually innocent mutt.

As far as destruction goes I think that there are two options. The owner can elect to have the dog destroyed. Otherwise, I think that the destruction has to be ordered by the District Court.

What bothers me is that there seem to be very limited sanctions in relation to a biting dog where the incident happens within a home. If the owner is that insulated from criminal sanction who is due for the next bite ?

As Ashbx says much depends on what actually happened.

BTW, it is possible to use a dog as a weapon !

Mooooo

If it's the liveline thing shown above and it happened on private property the parents of the bitten child can take a civil case against the dog owners I assume. Personally if any of my dogs bit a child known or unknown it would be pts. Twud break my heart but I would not risk it happening again. A dog esp with kids around can be trained early enough not to bite if the tail is pulled etc. Obv parents have to be responsible for the child but the owner of a dog has a responsibility that the dog is not in a position to do harm first and foremost imv. Kids will be kids but dogs can be trained

Dial Hard

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

What I did not hear is the breed of the dog i.e a banned breed, a dog on the schedule of types to which additional restrictions apply or an otherwise usually innocent mutt.

There are no banned breeds in Ireland.

123shooter

Mooooo wrote: »

Personally if any of my dogs bit a child known or unknown it would be pts.

Ok.

Kids will be kids but dogs can be trained

Oh so it's ok peoples kids to annoy, pester, attack, hurt, harm, torment or whatever someone elses personal property or possibly another persons family member if the dog is a pet?

NUTLEY BOY

ED E wrote: »

Assuming this is based on the liveline story here:
http://pca.st/ZJxe

Boy A(Victim) is playing with Boy B(Dog "Owner"). Boy B startles the dog and it bites Boy A. All occurs in Boy B's own garden.

According to Liveline the dog warden cant get involved when its on private property.

That must be what I was listening to on the car radio. If so, I think that the dog owner refused a request from the child's mother to put down the dog.

I thought that the dog was inside it's owner's property ? If I have that wrong then I would take a very different opinion on the owner's exposure to legal sanctions i.e if outside his house then he is wide open to proper investigation and other sanctions.

Irrespective of where the incident occurred the owner is also open to a civil action on behalf of the child. Hopefully, he has liability insurance under his household insurance policy.

NUTLEY BOY

Dial Hard wrote: »

There are no banned breeds in Ireland.

Much obliged.

Is there just a list of restricted breeds or breeds to which additional restrictions apply ?

AryaStark

jcd5971 wrote: »

If a dog bites it goes down simple.

Guards will get involved especially for a child, also if reported to the local council they will have the dog destroyed, also owner of dog is liable for legal recourse IF this happened outside the home, or inside the owners home with permission to be there.

I know animal lovers find it cruel but a dog that bites simply must be put down, if it's an animal that bites a child it must be annihilated from existence.

This is a legal discussion thread. What you have said is not true. You may believe it is fair that the dog is put down but it is not the law and depends on the situation.

GM228

Dial Hard wrote: »

There are no banned breeds in Ireland.

Well technically there is, Dublin City Council banned the restricted dog breeds from all it's property and estates under bye law in 2007, so depending on breed and location you could have a breed which is banned by law.

Hannibal_Smith

My grandad had a dog when we were kids. He bit a neighbours kid, the kid needed stitches and the dog was put down. The thing was I saw what happened. The kid was bouncing a tennis ball right in front of the dog trying to get him to jump for it. He jumped, tried to get the ball, but got the kids hand by accident. I told my parents but no one believed me.

Don't put the dog down out of impulse. If he viciously savaged the kid, then yes of course. But I hate hearing dogs being automatically put down when they've bitten.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Much obliged.

Is there just a list of restricted breeds or breeds to which additional restrictions apply ?

See here:-
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/si/442/made/en/print

lawred2

Ashbx wrote: »

There is no straight yes or no answer here....all depends on what actually happened .

Its never ok for a dog to attack a child but majority of the time the child themselves has done something to provoke it and kids don't know how to pick up warning signs from dogs, which then usually leads to a bite.

Guards are not usually much assistance in these cases unfortunately.

If it's never ok then it's irrelevant what the child did or didn't do.

Dial Hard

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Is there just a list of restricted breeds or breeds to which additional restrictions apply ?

Restricted breeds. They have to be handled by someone over the age of 16 and muzzled and leashed in public at all times.

It's also a load of specious nonsense based on absolutely no empirical bite data whatsoever. The minister responsible (Bobby Keogh, IIRC) basically picked dogs he thought looked mean. Also IIRC, the breed responsible for most bites in this country is the Labrador, but you don't see tabloid news articles branding them "Demon Dogs".

As for the topic at hand, I'm very much of the opinion that the decision about whether to put a biting dog down very much depends on the dog's overall background and the circumstances surrounding the bite itself. I fundamentally disagree with the train of thought that says every dog that bites should automatically be destroyed.

Full disclosure: I was attacked by a dog as a child and spent two days in hospital over it and that dog was put down. I was absolutely at least 50% responsible for the bite, though.

ash8390

Why was the child allowed to be unsupervised around the dog in the first place?

Negligence on the parents part IMO and perhaps they should look after the child better in the first place and not leave them unsupervised with a dog and then decide they have a right to kill the dog. Lazy parenting.

Marcusm

GM228 wrote: »

Well technically there is, Dublin City Council banned the restricted dog breeds from all it's property and estates under bye law in 2007, so depending on breed and location you could have a breed which is banned by law.

Surely that just means the presence of a dog of the specified preee is precluded rather than the existence of a dog within the city council's authority limits.

jcd5971

daheff wrote:

I think your wording is poor, but sentiment is right.

That could be a fair assment not looking to invite anyone I have a dog myself

Dial Hard

GM228 wrote:

Well technically there is, Dublin City Council banned the restricted dog breeds from all it's property and estates under bye law in 2007, so depending on breed and location you could have a breed which is banned by law.

You know what I meant. There is no breed that state legislation deems it illegal to own.

Mooooo

123shooter wrote: »

Ok.



Oh so it's ok peoples kids to annoy, pester, attack, hurt, harm, torment or whatever someone elses personal property or in possibly another persons family member if the dog is a pet?

Did I say that? You can control a dogs surroundings when on your property and by law must maintain control of the dog in public. As I said kids parents have responsibilities also. But jumping up and down saying it's the child fault if a dog bites is avoiding your responsibilities as an owner imo. Supervision of child and dogs would have prevented it. If kids were acting the bollix with a dog I would give out to the kids but I would also take the dog out of the situation. Too many people these days are quick to blame different scenarios on what someone else should or should not be doing while at the same time doing nothing to prevent said scenario by taking a simple action themselves

Samuel T. Cogley

Dog control in this country is an utter joke.

Mean Laqueefa

ash8390 wrote: »

Why was the child allowed to be unsupervised around the dog in the first place?

Negligence on the parents part IMO and perhaps they should look after the child better in the first place and not leave them unsupervised with a dog and then decide they have a right to kill the dog. Lazy parenting.

While i think its a bit harsh the lazy parenting part it is hard to disagree.

Never been bit and grew up with all kinds of breeds. I remember messing with our doberman when i was young trying to jump its back, just lucky he never turned on me.

Recently had my beloved staff put down, rescue and while fine around people i just never trusted her around kids due to her backgraound and what i seen her try to do to ANY other animal.

If i walked into a neighbors house with a child and saw a big dog i would ask for it to outside regardless of breed. Small dogs are as bad but the injuries less minor, i could hold the kid away or palm the dog off. Or teach my kids not to **** with animals

ash8390

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Dog control in this country is an utter joke.

Child control in this country is an utter joke.

Samuel T. Cogley

ash8390 wrote: »

Child control in this country is an utter joke.

Agreed, but the two are not mutually exclusive and a child can be removed from private property.

123shooter

Mooooo wrote: »

Did I say that? You can control a dogs surroundings when on your property and by law must maintain control of the dog in public. As I said kids parents have responsibilities also. But jumping up and down saying it's the child fault if a dog bites is avoiding your responsibilities as an owner imo. Supervision of child and dogs would have prevented it. If kids were acting the bollix with a dog I would give out to the kids but I would also take the dog out of the situation. Too many people these days are quick to blame different scenarios on what someone else should or should not be doing while at the same time doing nothing to prevent said scenario by taking a simple action themselves

I never said it was the childs fault. I never said it was anybodies fault.

You said 'kids will be kids'. Well kids should never be allowed to cause harm or distress to anybody or anything at any time and those kids which do or/and their parents should be held totally responsible for their actions...........there is no and never will be 'kids will be kids'.

You also said a 'dog can be trained not to bite if it's tail is pulled'. Well I can't think of words to answer.

Mooooo

123shooter wrote: »

I never said it was the childs fault. I never said it was anybodies fault.

You said 'kids will be kids'. Well kids should never be allowed to cause harm or distress to anybody or anything at any time and those kids which do or/and their parents should be held totally responsible for their actions...........there is no and never will be 'kids will be kids'.

You also said a 'dog can be trained not to bite if it's tail is pulled'. Well I can't think of words to answer.

Our 3 all different breeds have never so much as growled at kids, we controll the situation there together with anyone. When playing with them as pups we play with them do things thst kids may do, gently i may add, and are told no biting. Has worked for us. Now the sisters kids are good and do what they are told as are the neighbours kids but the adult in charge of that situation should have a) been supervising and b) taken action if the kids were too rough or dog was getting excited. You are making it out as if it's child's fault and that's it, when it is the adult in charge of the property and the dog owner that is responsible for the situation. If kids are being rough or dog getting excited control the situation. You do not know what other people's children may or may not do however if you own the property you can control the environment the dog is exposed to.

123shooter

Mean Laqueefa wrote: »

If i walked into a neighbors house with a child and saw a big dog i would ask for it to outside regardless of breed. Small dogs are as bad but the injuries less minor, i could hold the kid away or palm the dog off. Or teach my kids not to **** with animals

Do you mean you would want the dog which lives in that house to be put outside while you bring in your child.......If so why the dog lives there?

123shooter

Mooooo wrote: »

You are making it out as if it's child's fault and that's it, when it is the adult in charge of the property and the dog owner that is responsible for the situation. If kids are being rough or dog getting excited control the situation. You do not know what other people's children may or may not do however if you own the property you can control the environment the dog is exposed to.

Actually I am not as I do not know any of the details of this situation.

But your comments on 'kids will be kids' implied to me that someone thinks they can do no wrong and can do what they like. Which will never be the case.

Also the 'dog being trained not to bite if it's tail is pulled' comment is something else I find hard to swallow.

I love Sean nos

Ionised wrote: »

In this age of equality I wonder if it should work equally the other way round?

Do you? Do you really wonder whether children should be put down? :rolleyes:

Edit: You would get another :rolleyes: for attempting to justify your statement with "equality", but fortunately it's cancelled out by your failure to mention the "PC Brigade" or some version thereof.

Ludwig Heinrich Edler

Perhaps it is unfair to compare dog breeders with Dr Megele but I feel strongly that pitbull type dogs should not be bred, nor for that matter should dogs be bred for the purposes of becoming a fashion accessory. Using selective breeding to contort the bodies and faces of the resulting dogs amounts to cruelty and torture as far as I am concerned. Many of these animals have lower life expectancies due to various health complications.

Mr. Incognito

A dog that bites should be destroyed.

No exceptions.

None.

Ah but sure x,y,z

I don't want to hear it.

A dog is a sentient being. If you believe that then the dog chose to bite someone.

Google "Judge Orders Dog Destroyed" and you will find plenty of examples.

If the owners refuse to be responsible bring them to Court for personal injuries and for the dog to be destroyed.

faceman

I've too much emotional involvement to give a level answer as I'm a dog owner and have grown up with them.

I've always believed that there should be some kind of minimum requirements or even class that people take before they are granted a dog licence.

I've got a rescue, a cocker spaniel. He was severely mistreated before I took him home. He's incredibly weary of children and used to suffer massive anxiety. While his anxiety has improved he is still weary of kids.

It's frustrating walking him she kids and parents assume it's ok to approach and pet him. To him, he sees it as a threatening move.

Some parents will ask permission and a percentage will have the hump when I say no and explain why. I've given up being defensive about it and feel no guilt saying no nowadays and not offer an explanation.

I look after my dog exceptionally well. He's well controlled. However in the event of him being cornered and snapping at a kid which would be defensive from his perspective, it would be devastating to have to put him asleep.

Also I hate the expression destroying dogs. While they're animals, they're living creatures. It's sounds inhumane.

the_syco

gabsdot40 wrote: »

Should the dog be destroyed and if the owners refuse to do anything about it can the guards get involved?

No. Was the child trespassing? Did the child hit the dog first? Context is everything!

the_syco

Mod cod post deleted. This is a serious topic for those concerned

blackvalley

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Ah but sure x,y,z

I don't want to hear it.

.

You dont want to hear it !!! Poor soul .
Better butt out of the discussion so as this is a forum where all opinions are expressed and discussed freely .

gabsdot40

Thanks for all your comments. It's certainly an interesting question.
I don't know the dog's breed.
The boy and his mother rent a room in the house where the dog lives. I don't know them well but I drove them into the hospital.
I don't know the circumstances of the bite. His mum said he was playing with the dog. She doesn't speak English that well so a lot was lost in translation.

Samuel T. Cogley

While I don't know if the dog will be destroyed it could possibly be an aggravating factor once the inevitable subject of damages comes up.

Discodog

AFAIK an owner can only be made to surrender a dog, to the warden, by Court Order & it usually needs the Guards with a warrant.

Every circumstance is different & the Liveline discussion wasn't helped by the outdated comments of the Vet.

I have dealt with cases, in the UK, where a canine behaviour expert testified in defence of the dog.

Stoner

daheff wrote:

I'm a dog lover and don't like to see dogs /cats/animals destroyed for no reason. But unfortunately I can't see a circumstance where this animal can be deemed to be of no future danger to society

I've a two year old and two dogs. I'd have to put them to sleep if they bit him.

I had to do it years ago with the best dog I ever had , broke my heart it was 20 years ago and I still miss him.

But it's too much of a risk.

Discodog

Stoner wrote: »

I've a two year old and two dogs. I'd have to put them to sleep if they bit him.

I had to do it years ago with the best dog I ever had , broke my heart it was 20 years ago and I still miss him.

But it's too much of a risk.

Every dog carries a risk & dogs should never be left alone with children. The "once" they have tasted blood myth is a myth.

Just killing the dog doesn't identify the cause or liability.