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]

Should a small dog be destroyed because it uncharacteristically nipped someone?

  • 25-07-2022 7:14pm
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭

    A jack russell terrier apparently bit/nipped? a passerby outside its rural home in Roscommon. The dog had never done anything like this previously. The person bitten/nipped refused any help from the dog's owner to bring her for medical assessment/treatment and opted to go to a hospital/GP? only with a neighbour of the dog owner. The "victim" apparently is not from the locale at all but from a very distant part of the country. According to the dog owner's neighbour, the wound seemed to be superficial. Subsequently, the dog owner received notice to have the dog destroyed, which he is obviously devastated about and does not wish to have undertaken until all other possibilities can be considered. The "victim" remains intransigent and the ruling to have the dog destroyed has been upheld by Roscommon District Court. An appeal to the High Court has given the dog owner some further time. Now, among the numerous possibilities put forward by the owner are to ensure that the dog is restricted to its own home or to have it retrained or to have it (drastic measure) rehomed or to have it assessed by a dog expert to determine if the dog is a danger to society, and if yes, the owner would bring the dog to a location to have her put asleep - in other words anything but having his pet dog destroyed. I find it horrendous that a person who doesn't even live in the area and who will never again be in any "danger" from this little dog would put the dog owner, who is 85 years old with a pacemaker and for whom his dog is everything, through this nightmare with the awful prospect of having his beloved pet destroyed. I do not have access to the court ruling or the basis for same, but surely, numerous alternative options other than destruction of the dog can easily remedy this issue. Does the law simply work in black & white as a processing machine and not take into consideration all parties involved rather than just the "victim." For the dog and for its owner the outcome of destroying a loved pet seems ludicrous considering the number of abandoned/unloved dogs that we have in this country. The dog's name is Kim and there are several accounts regarding her plight online, and there are support sites on Twitter and a petition site on

    Retired garda, 85, pleads for his dog's life to be spared after biting incident (

    Petition · Save Kim ·

    I was informed on a separate posting of this issue on a different discussion category (pets - it was removed presumably by the moderator) that my presentation was too emotive and that I should provide/read the district court documentation before making judgement. I cannot access this documentation. Speaking, without trying to be emotional, can I just say (1) that there seem to be numerous solutions to this issue rather than destroying the elderly gentleman's pet dog and (2) if Joe Bidens dog is allowed to be spared following two biting incidents at the Whitehouse, why should an old man in Roscommon not also be given due consideration - as you age, a dog in many instances really does become your best friend, your confidante, your raison d'etre. Does a nip to a passing stranger warrant the ultimate punishment for the dog and its owner?????? No, imo no, it is already devastating for him to have been put through this for the last two months, and if the order is processed, that man's life will be ruined.

    Post edited by Gremlinertia on



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Jequ0n

    Do you have an actual article that states what happened during the snapping incident or led up to it?

    Your post consists of hearsay and some weird sources. Nobody will sign a petition on the back of that.

  • Registered Users Posts: 273 ✭✭Labaik

    This is a pet hate of mine pardon the pun. No matter what the size or breed of a dog they should never be allowed roam gardens or the streets unsupervised or without a muzzle. You see it all the time in parks, people allowing there dog off leads to run at people or near young kids, the dog may be friendly but the fright it gives people to see a dog approach them isn't nice. Unfortunate for the dog that he has to pay the ultimate price for a foolish owners neglect.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 273 ✭✭Labaik

    But what happens if it bites a young child? Do you not realise the impact mentally been bit by a dog has on some people?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl

    Bitten by loads of dogs as a kid, Even had a nemesis that would jump over the wall and chase me for ages. I'm fine. If your mauled that's different.

  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭BagofWeed

    Her third time being bitten.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭harr

    I think a lot more behind this that it seems , definitely seems to be some history between dog owner and lady in question.

    The woman in question was been threatened physically on many social media platforms, her image had been posted as has her address. A lot of people have been hyped up into a mob by the likes of Ben Gilroy and his likes . He has met with the man.

    I don’t know the particulars of the dog bite but the judge has given his judgment and the lady in question is adamant the dog had to go and definitely seems to be more to this story if she is so determined to go through with the courts orders ..

  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭deaglan1

    What? Can you elaborate on this and what were the actions/outcomes in the previous cases?

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,059 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject

    What a cnut, no other word for her.

  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭deaglan1

    (1) "The dog bit someone" Define a bite versus a nip.

    (2) "Where the woman is from has nothing to do with it" - yes it does, it should absolutely be taken into consideration - she is the one pushing for destruction yet she is in no danger of ever encountering this dog again.

    (3) "Unless the woman kicked the dog..." Well, as it stands, I am not aware of what occurred - but if a dog has no history of biting/nipping someone, yet does bite/nip this individual, that might suggest that there was an interaction of some sort prior to the bite/nip - or at least provides a basis for doubt on what really happened.

    (4)"A court has ruled on it" A court operates within laws - laws can be very flawed - they only consist of words after all and are therefore subject to the limitations of language, i.e. they cannot possibly address all situations. Putting laws on a pedestal and accepting them as etched-in-stone calcified truths is naive.

    (5)"Sounds like plenty of consideration has been given" - really, you base this apophthegmatic utterance on what exactly?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭plodder

    A few details don't sound right. The only way a dog can be ordered to be destroyed is by a judge at the district court. Did the owner not attend the hearing to argue for his dog? If nobody shows up, it seems a lot more likely a judge will just order it be destroyed as they might conclude this is not a responsible owner.

  • Registered Users Posts: 38 SpudsandGuinness

    It's a hard one to call going on the circumstances but if it happens to do this a second time and damages a child well then it'll be too late .It's sad but sometimes maybe you have to be cruel to be kind. Sad either way and a tuff call.

  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭deaglan1

    Thank you for that insight - it would seem to a non-legal person like me that there is plenty of leeway here: "order that the dog be kept under proper control OR be destroyed" So, why go for the nuclear option, considering that the owner has said that he would do everything to ensure that the dog would be under control?

  • Registered Users Posts: 983 ✭✭✭hamburgham

    That is so true. Really makes you realise how perverse things are in this country. For all we know, the dog in question has acted as a deterrent to such lowlife thinking of breaking in. Jacks are fabulous watchdogs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭reniwren

    Maybe they had been reported before to dog warden, maybe they don't turn up to court. Lots of back story not known here.

    People just need to be aware of what is there so they don't have to go through the hassle of court etc

  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭deaglan1

    Why would it do this a second time and specifically to a child - this is being generated in your mind? All that one has to do to retain a dog within the confines of their own home space is install an electric wire works brilliantly without inflicting any pain on the dog. If we start going down the route of endless nightmare possibilities then why allow people to legally own specific large dog breeds in this country that have a reputation for temperaments that can be considered dangerous to children and adults alike? Why allow anyone drive a car - they result in accidents. What really happened here?

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,127 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge

    It went to district court and an appeal to the circuit court. So two judges heard the full story from both sides. Most here are just taking one side as gospel. We haven't the full story or history.

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous

    I do have sympathy for the old man and hope the dog is saved considering the circumstances... But most of the time I absolutely hate people who let their dogs run around outside their properties on public roads like that, because there is always one fker that will try and nip you.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭reniwren

This discussion has been closed.