Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Dog bite today

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    frillyleaf
    Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭frillyleaf


    martin101 wrote: »
    The thing is I've seen this Doberman before with its owner. And he's forever smacking it on the nose. But this was the first time I seen it off the lead and sure enough I got bitten. Didn't sleep much last night due to pain and anger. And also thinking of the what ifs. That what makes me even more annoyed. You go out on a Thursday morning with a buggy to get your child asleep for a little nap, last thing you expect is a dog attack

    Sorry to hear this happened op. Sounds like owners are completely irresponsible. Them smacking and using pain makes an animal very fearful which can no doubt result in “unprovoked” attacks like this. I wonder do they use shock collar / chock chain and apply pain to it. Poor dog.


  • Options
    #93
    frillyleaf
    Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭frillyleaf


    amadangomor wrote: »
    It's as much about the breeds ability to do damage as their temperament. That is why Staffies are included on the list. Most are placid but if one wasn't it has a hugely powerful bite and has a latching on instinct. A Jack Russell may be aggressive but couldn't do anywhere near as much damage

    Damage is relative to size of person the dog attacks. Even a Jack Russel can cause serious injury or worse to a small child or baby. I think a huge issue is people don’t realise this


  • Options
    #94
    amadangomor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭amadangomor


    frillyleaf wrote: »
    Damage is relative to size of person the dog attacks. Even a Jack Russel can cause serious injury or worse to a small child or baby. I think a huge issue is people don’t realise this

    I get you but I was talking about why the legislation was in place. A Jack Russell could give a nasty bite or maybe kill a baby but still does not have the enormous jaw strength and latching ability of the breeds specifically bred for baiting bulls.


  • Options
    #95
    DBB
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB


    If I may, can I dispel the myth that bull breeds, or any breed for that matter, has a "latching" mechanism? It's a small detail, in the big scheme of things, but it is one of many myths that bull breeds don't deserve!

    Now, when it comes to breeds, there's a bit of research done on breeds, bites, and legislation. One of the finest papers produced so far was completed by Irish researchers, using Irish statistics on dog bites. Some seriously interesting reading, which I'd hope will help convince people that attaching labels to certain breeds is a really risky, dangerous thing to do. This supports research carried out in other jurisdictions, which in some cases has prompted governments to abolish breed specific legislation, replacing it with legislation that places the onus of responsibility on the owner, regardless of the breed of their dog.
    Enjoy the read!
    https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1


  • Options
    #96
    Still waters
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Still waters


    DBB wrote: »
    If I may, can I dispel the myth that bull breeds, or any breed for that matter, has a "latching" mechanism? It's a small detail, in the big scheme of things, but it is one of many myths that bull breeds don't deserve!

    Now, when it comes to breeds, there's a bit of research done on breeds, bites, and legislation. One of the finest papers produced so far was completed by Irish researchers, using Irish statistics on dog bites. Some seriously interesting reading, which I'd hope will help convince people that attaching labels to certain breeds is a really risky, dangerous thing to do. This supports research carried out in other jurisdictions, which in some cases has prompted governments to abolish breed specific legislation, replacing it with legislation that places the onus of responsibility on the owner, regardless of the breed of their dog.
    Enjoy the read!
    https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1

    Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Tazzimus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,935 ✭✭✭Tazzimus


    Still waters wrote: »
    Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr

    Just read the conclusion paragraph?


  • Options
    #98
    DBB
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB


    Still waters wrote: »
    Is there any hope you could give a bullet point tldr

    It is synopsised in the first 3 paragraphs in the link :)
    The basic message is that by listing specific breeds of dog as being more "dangerous" than other breeds, as our legislation does, it results in people being lulled into the false assumption that non-listed breeds must be safer.
    Secondly, it finds that the listed breeds were actually involved in fewer bite incidents than non-listed breeds.
    Thirdly, it finds that listed breeds do not actually cause more damage when they bite than non-listed breeds do.
    Fourthly, it finds that people are more likely to report a bite if it involves a listed breed, than if it's not a listed breed.


  • Options
    #99
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Havent read the entire thread, but its extremely unusual for any dog to just randomly run up to someone and bite them.

    Something in the OPs behaviour triggered that reaction from the dog.

    In saying that, it should have been on a lead so fault lies with the owners. I don't agree with muzzling dogs.

    The owners should pay the medical bills, and possibly a fine would make them reconsider keeping their dog on a lead in an estate.

    I don't agree the dog should lose its life because of its owner's error.


  • Options
    #100
    Still waters
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Still waters


    Tazzimus wrote: »
    Just read the conclusion paragraph?

    Just mind your own fcukin business


  • Options
    #101
    Still waters
    Registered Users Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Still waters


    DBB wrote: »
    It is synopsised in the first 3 paragraphs in the link :)
    The basic message is that by listing specific breeds of dog as being more "dangerous" than other breeds, as our legislation does, it results in people being lulled into the false assumption that non-listed breeds must be safer.
    Secondly, it finds that the listed breeds were actually involved in fewer bite incidents than non-listed breeds.
    Thirdly, it finds that listed breeds do not actually cause more damage when they bite than non-listed breeds do.
    Fourthly, it finds that people are more likely to report a bite if it involves a listed breed, than if it's not a listed breed.

    Thank you :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    DBB
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB


    Still waters wrote: »
    Just mind your own fcukin business

    In light of your above post, pease don't post in this thread again.
    Thanks,
    DBB


  • Options
    #103
    iwillhtfu
    Registered Users Posts: 6,367 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu


    DBB wrote: »
    If I may, can I dispel the myth that bull breeds, or any breed for that matter, has a "latching" mechanism? It's a small detail, in the big scheme of things, but it is one of many myths that bull breeds don't deserve!

    Now, when it comes to breeds, there's a bit of research done on breeds, bites, and legislation. One of the finest papers produced so far was completed by Irish researchers, using Irish statistics on dog bites. Some seriously interesting reading, which I'd hope will help convince people that attaching labels to certain breeds is a really risky, dangerous thing to do. This supports research carried out in other jurisdictions, which in some cases has prompted governments to abolish breed specific legislation, replacing it with legislation that places the onus of responsibility on the owner, regardless of the breed of their dog.
    Enjoy the read!
    https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1

    How many dog bites are actually reported/recorded though I'd say the figures would be quite low so the statistics would have a shaky base to begin with. Personally I know of 3 people bitten by dogs none reported and one poor unfortunate bitten on the face by her own dog.


  • Options
    #104
    DBB
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭DBB


    iwillhtfu wrote: »
    How many dog bites are actually reported/recorded though I'd say the figures would be quite low so the statistics would have a shaky base to begin with. Personally I know of 3 people bitten by dogs none reported and one poor unfortunate bitten on the face by her own dog.

    140 reports of dog bites were analysed for the above paper. 100 non-listed breeds, 40 listed breeds. A figure which, according to the researchers' power analysis, surpassed statistical requirements to establish medium to large effect sizes.
    Dog bite incidents that attend hospital are supposed to be recorded by the medical personnel. Whether it always or not, I don't know. One of the authors of the above paper has further research published in which he investigated the dog bite incidents presenting in Irish hospitals between 1998 and 2013, a total of 3164 hospitalisations. There's statistical power for you! In that paper, he found that the number of dog bite incidents has actually increased since the introduction of the 1998 bye-law that identified the 11 listed breeds as having to be on lead and muzzled in public.
    But other than analysing reported incidents, I'm not sure how researchers would go about collecting data.


  • Options
    #105
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,477 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Dog needs to be destroyed, I know people don’t want to hear that but it was an unproved attack, if the kid had gotten in the way we could be looking at a dead kid.


  • Options
    #106
    Tazzimus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,935 ✭✭✭Tazzimus


    Still waters wrote: »
    Just mind your own fcukin business

    Someone needs a coke and a smile..

    It was summarised in the first three paragraphs if you bothered to read past the title of it, and then went into the meat of it.

    Fairly sure the summary you read was longer than the conclusion paragraph.


  • Options
    #107
    LillySV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

    Mod: As previously advised in the thread this poster has been permabanned. When a mod tells you not to post in a thread again it is not mearly a suggestion.


  • Options
    #108
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    LillySV wrote: »
    Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

    Dogs are not humans.
    Its sentiment like yours that results in cases like ops going un reported and un prosecuted.


  • Options
    #109
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    LillySV wrote: »
    Op please don’t let this dog lose its life for a split second mistake... if life was like that for humans we would all be put down!

    A mistake is someone messing around and getting bitten accidentally. What the OP describes is a deliberate, unprovoked attack by a dog.

    That's a dangerous dog, and while I take your point that there are some humans who are just as dangerous (not all though!) the facts are that we no longer put humans down, that we prioritise human life and safety over canine life amd that we do put dogs down.

    (In some cases, fatal illnesses in particular, I think we could argue that's a kindness to dogs that we don't extend to humans)

    Anyway, my point is, we don't allow dogs to go around biting random humans, and nor should we.


  • Options
    #110
    MissDisaster
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭MissDisaster


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    No dog on earth in "inherently" dangerous. Its the most ignorant ****e you could ever think of

    Exactly! It’s usually just an excuse for lazy training or owners who wanted a status dog more than anything.


  • Options
    #111
    MissDisaster
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭MissDisaster


    amadangomor wrote: »
    It's as much about the breeds ability to do damage as their temperament. That is why Staffies are included on the list. Most are placid but if one wasn't it has a hugely powerful bite and has a latching on instinct. A Jack Russell may be aggressive but couldn't do anywhere near as much damage

    Definitely...I mean as much as I love animals I’d rather take my chances with a wee Jack russel than a massive dog breed.
    Although if you were going off the sounds my JR makes to the postman, you’d swear he would rip him apart. (Still working on behaviour training just before anybody jumps in!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    MissDisaster wrote: »
    Definitely...I mean as much as I love animals I’d rather take my chances with a wee Jack russel than a massively Staffy. The Lock Jaw they have is genuinely terrifying.

    I think the lock jaw thing is inaccurate. My mam has a smaller dog and you can lift her by the toy in her mouth, such is her grip on it. My staffie mix is strong and has a big mouth, but can't grip anything like that.


  • Options
    #113
    the purple tin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,943 ✭✭✭✭the purple tin


    jaxxx wrote: »
    Copied this from online:


    S.I. No. 442/1998 - Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998



    5 Leashing and Muzzling
    5. (1) This article shall apply to every:—


    (a) American Pit Bull Terrier,


    (b) Bull Mastiff,


    (c) Doberman Pinscher,


    (d) English Bull Terrier,


    (e) German Shepherd (Alsatian),


    (f) Japanese Akita,


    (g) Japanese Tosa,


    (h) Rhodesian Ridgeback,


    (i) Rottweiler,


    (j) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and


    to every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog), and to every other strain or cross of every breed or type of dog described in this article.


    (2) A person shall not permit a dog to which this article applies to be in a public place unless such dog is:—


    (i) securely muzzled; and


    (ii) being led by a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length, by a person over the age of sixteen years who is capable of controlling the said dog.


    I've seen heaps of g shepards and staffies out with their owners but have only ever seen one or two of them muzzled. Do the owners not know about this law or just don't care?


  • Options
    #114
    iwillhtfu
    Registered Users Posts: 6,367 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu


    the purple tin wrote: »
    I've seen heaps of g shepards and staffies out with their owners but have only ever seen one or two of them muzzled. Do the owners not know about this law or just don't care?

    Most of them probably haven't even got a dog licence never mind knowing the laws surrounding dogs.


  • Options
    #115
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    iwillhtfu wrote: »
    Most of them probably haven't even got a dog licence never mind knowing the laws surrounding dogs.

    Can I just add that it's not always this simple.

    A lot of restricted breeds are the ones who end up in rehoming centres. Their level of training is variable and trying to muzzle train an older dog is very hard.

    We have a dog licence and an appropriate lead (which she is always kept on) but muzzle training her was an absolute disaster which led to her hurting herself more than once, trying to get the muzzle off - so we don't muzzle her. We know it is illegal but she is always kept under our control and we don't really have any other options at the moment.


  • Options
    #116
    AryaStark
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭AryaStark


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    Can I just add that it's not always this simple.

    A lot of restricted breeds are the ones who end up in rehoming centres. Their level of training is variable and trying to muzzle train an older dog is very hard.

    We have a dog licence and an appropriate lead (which she is always kept on) but muzzle training her was an absolute disaster which led to her hurting herself more than once, trying to get the muzzle off - so we don't muzzle her. We know it is illegal but she is always kept under our control and we don't really have any other options at the moment.

    I have a Rottweiler cross and he is now 10 months... we have a muzzle here and have gotten him used to getting it on and left it on for about 10 minutes at a time to be sure he was comfortable with it in cases of emergency i.e at the vets

    I do not make him wear it out on walks etc and I won't do it. I think the law is ridiculous. He is never of lead and we walk in places where I have never ever seen a dog warden. I hate the idea of him having to wear a muzzle when he is such a lovely pup.

    I am not sure if there is a certain age where restricted breeds have to wear the muzzle... I don't want people seeing him and being afraid cause of the muzzle. It is hard enough to socialise him.


  • Options
    #117
    Princess Calla
    Registered Users Posts: 5,794 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    AryaStark wrote: »

    I do not make him wear it out on walks etc and I won't do it. I think the law is ridiculous.

    He is never of lead and we walk in places where I have never ever seen a dog warden.

    I hate the idea of him having to wear a muzzle when he is such a lovely pup.

    I don't want people seeing him and being afraid cause of the muzzle. It is hard enough to socialise him.

    There are many laws that I think are ridiculous, doesn't meant I get to go around breaking them.

    It was your choice to get a big breed dog, follow the rules that go with that decision.

    I've no doubt he's a gorgeous dog, but he can still get spooked. It only takes one incident and your dog will pay the ultimate price.

    No one is afraid of a dog in a muzzle, they are afraid of a big breed dog without a muzzle.

    The fact that the dog is hard to socialise is no one else's problem, again you chose a big breed dog.


  • Options
    #118
    AryaStark
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭AryaStark


    Princess Calla wrote: »
    There are many laws that I think are ridiculous, doesn't meant I get to go around breaking them.

    It was your choice to get a big breed dog, follow the rules that go with that decision.

    I've no doubt he's a gorgeous dog, but he can still get spooked. It only takes one incident and your dog will pay the ultimate price.

    No one is afraid of a dog in a muzzle, they are afraid of a big breed dog without a muzzle.

    The fact that the dog is hard to socialise is no one else's problem, again you chose a big breed dog.

    He is on a short lead when we are out walking and will never be offlead in public... I've a big garden so he gets to run about lots there and we visit a few places where he can run off lead.

    I did choose to rescue him and when I did I knew I would ignore this law... I am not going to change my mind and will not be putting a muzzle on him just because others cannot train and control their dogs. I am hoping that this law will be changed soon and then there wont be a problem. Until then I will continue to break the law.


  • Options
    #119
    Lady Haywire
    Registered Users Posts: 5,181 ✭✭✭Lady Haywire


    I'm butting in on a thread *mods move at will) but thought this appropriate to share.

    https://twitter.com/Jamiepenrith2/status/1230555144460341248


  • Options
    #120
    Princess Calla
    Registered Users Posts: 5,794 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    AryaStark wrote: »
    I am not going to change my mind and will not be putting a muzzle on him just because others cannot train and control their dogs.

    I am hoping that this law will be changed soon and then there wont be a problem. Until then I will continue to break the law.

    Other dogs is only a part of the reason for a muzzle.

    It could easily be a child that spooks your dog, but then I suppose it's up to the parents to control their children.

    Or maybe you could just follow the law and prevent a preventable accident.

    It's nice that you have consideration for the vet (who I suspect has it as a rule) just not the general public.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    AryaStark
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭AryaStark


    Princess Calla wrote: »
    Other dogs is only a part of the reason for a muzzle.

    It could easily be a child that spooks your dog, but then I suppose it's up to the parents to control their children.

    Or maybe you could just follow the law and prevent a preventable accident.

    It's nice that you have consideration for the vet (who I suspect has it as a rule) just not the general public.

    Actually my vet doesnt make him wear the muzzle and he has never had to wear it while there. I trained him with it incase we ever need to see a different vet or groomer.

    I live in the country and walk him responsibly... he is on a short lead and walks with me. I find it interesting that he has been to puppy classes and then obedience classes with the DSPCA and they never mentioned that I should have a muzzle on him and he was allowed to take part in the classes without a muzzle.

    We have also been to an open day on the DSPCA and the Pet Expo and it was never mentioned. I assumed that a dog had to be of a certain age to need the muzzle but cannot find any official information about it online.

    I am not going to change the way I walk my dog or muzzle him .. there is very little chance of him being reported and if he was then I would change where I walk him.


Advertisement