If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Dangerous Dogs Owners



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,275 ✭✭✭✭walshb


  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 956 ✭✭✭lmao10

    I agree but this is not the first or last time a child will be maimed or killed by a dog. These attacks by all kinds of dogs happen all around the world daily.

    I know dogs provide comfort for people but for me the drawbacks of having dogs as pets outweighs the benefits. I was attacked by a dog myself as a kid and have a scar to show for it as well as the psychological issues such as nightmares and so on. You see people walking dogs and the dogs urinating everywhere, not to mention that it's like going through an obstacle course avoiding dog **** at times. On top of that there will always be attacks by dogs on people. Is it worth it? Not for me. Not for this young lad either.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭Be right back

    I believe that it was a husky involved in this case.

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB

    Not quite correct there about tgere being no facility to prosecute owners for attacks on people.

    That's the Control of Dogs regs 1998 you're quoting there, the bye-law which deals with the so-called "restricted breeds".

    The primary act, the Control of Dogs Act of 1986 does, in fact, deal with attacks on people under Section 22, and it is under this part of the Act that owners are prosecuted if their dog attacks a person, or indeed livestock. It also gives the Court the power to order that the dog is seized and euthanased.

    It should be noted that this Section of the Act applies to any dog of any breed.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,660 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa

    All it says about a dog attacking a person is:

    (5) Where a dog is proved to have caused damage in an attack on any person, or to have injured livestock, it may be dealt with under this section as a dangerous dog which has not been kept under proper control.

    Which explicit says that a dog attacking a person should be treated as a dog which has not been kept under proper control (which is section 9, with the penalty being defined in section 27). There's no specific offence or penalty for a dog attacking a person - it's all just about having the dog under control, which only applies to public spaces, and the penalty is a measly up to £500 and up to a month in jail.

    And I didn't quote any by-laws, I quoted the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, section 27

    My quote: "a fine not exceeding £500, or, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment."

    The 1986 Act:

  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]

    I thought as much unfortunately but didn’t want to say similar as I wasn’t sure. Allowing such dogs to wander freely, you may as well be walking down the street with a cocked loaded gun swinging it back and forth, such is the unpredictability of what could happen and the potential deadly outcome.

    We’re always going to have this challenge with such dogs until proper penalties and long prison sentences are introduced for owners who don’t obey the law- and also I don’t care for the “it’s not the dog it’s the owner” argument either- there are some dog breeds out there that just shouldn’t be allowed be owned unless some sort of owner certification is in place- when they attack the outcome is often deadly as we’ve seen in the UK over the last 2 years or so. The statistics around number of attacks be they significant or small don’t matter a damn to a mawled child’s mother and father.

    We know that when such dogs attack, the outcomes are either life changing or deadly- why even consider something like a pit bull as a pet- we don’t need that level of risk in our communities. And while some say they’re very loyal, many of the attacks were against their owners or family so that argument is just bull.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    For some reason I can't quote your post..

    By that reasoning alone, the argument could be made that a child or someone smaller than you could not fight off a german sheperd, so if one attacks, should they all be destroyed too?

    I just used GS and collies as examples of the top of my head. I've owned a spaniel with a diagnosed case of rage syndrome (and a nasty bite) that I had to have pts, so I am not against putting dogs to sleep where they have shown aggression.

    But destroying a whole breed, because of a few, is not a solution, in my opinion. You're entitled to disagree.

    So, I'm not going to waste yours or my time getting into any further debate about this, because it never reaches any kind of agreement.

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB

    And Section 21 deals with liability of the owner when their dog attacks a person, regardless of where the attack takes place.

    When a dog attacks a person, the law allows for the dog to be seized, euthanased, and it allows for the owner to be liable for all damages caused by their dog, and it allows for the owner to be fined and potentially imprisoned for transgressions under a number of sections of both the Act and the bye-law.

    My point is that it's not correct to say that there's no offence under which owners can be prosecuted when their dog attacks a person. You quoted a bye-law to make your point, but made no reference to the primary legislation which covers dog control across all breeds/types/mixes.

    Not having a go! Just clarifying that there's more to dog control legislation than just the bye-law you quoted.

    Edited to add: my apologies... it was indeed the primary Act you quoted. I misread it. 🥴

    My points still stand nonetheless. I've been in court many times and seen owners being prosecuted quite severely for dog attacks on people and livestock.

  • Advertisement