Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That's your experience shared fair enough, but what you have experienced is not what will happen across the board in all cases. I know of a DA Rottweiler who suffered a terrible leg injury from a smallish DA dog, had the Rotty been unmuzzled, he would have easily taken the other dog out given the size difference instead of having severed tendons in his front leg as a result. Probably, and what happens next? Do you know who always gets the blame when this sort of thing happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? You are right if that is the case, I rarely walked in leash restricted areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That's your experience shared fair enough, but what you have experienced is not what will happen across the board in all cases. I know of a DA Rottweiler who suffered a terrible leg injury from a smallish DA dog, had the Rotty been unmuzzled, he would have easily taken the other dog out given the size difference instead of having severed tendons in his front leg as a result. Probably, and what happens next? Do you know who always gets the blame when this sort of thing happens? Are you talking blame from a moral perspective or legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superminty Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. A muzzled dog cannot put holes in another dog or a person or another animal for that matter. I would say muzzling is good risk management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? You are right if that is the case, I rarely walked in leash restricted areas. Yes, then other forms of effective control are required in non leash restricted areas, that's correct and a muzzle in those circumstances could be beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. I did not know that! That's a real worry for anyone who likes dogs that might be capable of hurting another dog, even if they would never start it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That's your experience shared fair enough, but what you have experienced is not what will happen across the board in all cases. I know of a DA Rottweiler who suffered a terrible leg injury from a smallish DA dog, had the Rotty been unmuzzled, he would have easily taken the other dog out given the size difference instead of having severed tendons in his front leg as a result. Probably, and what happens next? Do you know who always gets the blame when this sort of thing happens? Are you talking blame from a moral perspective or legal? Legal. I don't care what moral perspective the attacking dog's owner has on my dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 mace, there is a risk no matter what you do when you have a dog - DA or not. Like others here I have chosen to muzzle her (after almost 3 years of resisting) for the community's safety and for her freedom. I am able to do more behaviour-changing exercises with her muzzled because I can take her more places. For example, under supervision with a trainer, I took her to the beach and worked her under distraction and she did really, really well. She focused on me whenever other dogs approached her and, because I knew she wasn't going to be lashing out, I relaxed, then she relaxed more etc. There is no way I would have felt comfortable doing that exercise if she was unmuzzled. Is there a risk that an off leash dog will approach her? Yes. I believe, however, that the risk of an attack is reduced because both of us stay more calm. If the dog is hell-bent on attacking her (ie out looking for a fight, which Steve reminded me is not that common) then there is not much I can do anyway. As others have pointed out, I'll be able to focus on getting the attacking dog off her, rather than trying to separate two attacking dogs and hoping I don't cop it myself. There is a social stigma attached to muzzles that I really wish we as a society would get over. Most people assume that, because she is muzzled, she must have bitten either people or dogs before, and that is not the case. She is a beautiful, strange little thing who was abused for many years (breeding bitch on a puppy farm, no name, never out of her cage). Despite lots of help from lots of talented people, she still lashes out in certain, unpredictable situations. I will continue behaviour modification with her until her last breath. A muzzle means she can live a decent doggy life in the interim. She goes to agility (100% fine there, no DA or HA tendencies, completly focused on the task), obedience and lots of walks all over Melbourne. She does lure racing (muzzle comes in handy because it is very arousing) and is learning scent detection. I am not prepared to increase the risk to the community and limit her already-limited freedom because there is a chance that a DA dog that she would normally be able to "take out" will decide to attack us. The risk vs reward just doesn't add up for me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superminty Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. I did not know that! That's a real worry for anyone who likes dogs that might be capable of hurting another dog, even if they would never start it. Scary, isn't it And bl**dy unfair IMO. I accept the risks associated with owning a DA dog, and the potential to lose my dog if I stuff it up but your average "normal", friendly dog that gets attacked and lashes out in defence is equally at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agility Dogs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. A muzzled dog cannot put holes in another dog or a person or another animal for that matter. I would say muzzling is good risk management. This. I have a friend who's large cross breed dog has been declared dangerous. Said dog was lounging at the neighbours tennis court enjoying sandwiches as it did every week when the ladies came over to play. One of the lady's husbands brought along his JRT which decided to latch onto my friend's dog. Said dog took offence to the little dog and picked it up/shook it doing damage in the process. (Puncture wounds, but nothing more serious - if the dog had really meant it the JRT would have been in serious trouble.) The owner of the JRT complained and my friends dog is now restricted. Fault is not always a good indicator of who will get the blame. Prevention is far better than cure IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. I did not know that! That's a real worry for anyone who likes dogs that might be capable of hurting another dog, even if they would never start it. That's incorrect and has been tested at civil law on two occasions that I know of, one case was a dog on leash killing an off leash dog, both cases the leashed dog was found not guilty under the provocation of a dog already in breach of generally 3 actions prior to the attack, 1. off leash in a leash controlled area, 2. not under effective control, 3. rushing at another animal to begin with versus a dog/owner in full legislation compliance at that stage. Unless there was strong evidence that the owner of the leashed dog allowed it to attack, like cornered the other dog for the purpose of mounting an attack or something equally bizaar, a leashed dog in an injury case verus an unleashed dog will win with an incident occurring in a leash controlled area when civil cases can be used as a precident, council won't have a hope in hell to bring a destruction or dangerous dog order upon a dog in such a case and most councils wouldn't pursue such a case anyway. The two civil cases I recall were conducted that way after council deemed the leash dog was not in breach of legislation and no action was taken in the matter. Edited January 11, 2012 by mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What everyone else said. I know of multiple situations where an off lead aggressor has been the dog more seriously injured and the owner of the on lead dog has been taken to court/ charged/ fined/ dogs declared etc. Every council is different too so there are no hard and fast rules. I don't EVER want my dog to have to use their teeth to take care of something. Prevention and/ or extraction from the situation is MY responsibility, not my dogs. And just to clarify mace- no one 'told me' anything. I have my own experience to draw from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Mace- EVERY council is different, you can't state that the leashed dog will not face serious repercussions- it depends on a wide and varied range of factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Our local council seems to be fairly reasonable. If anything, a little inactive (unless you happen to be on the beach during summer...) I still wouldn't want to test it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You'd rather risk losing your dog or getting a dangerous dog tag? I'd take a live, injured dog over a council ordered dead dog. How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. A muzzled dog cannot put holes in another dog or a person or another animal for that matter. I would say muzzling is good risk management. This. I have a friend who's large cross breed dog has been declared dangerous. Said dog was lounging at the neighbours tennis court enjoying sandwiches as it did every week when the ladies came over to play. One of the lady's husbands brought along his JRT which decided to latch onto my friend's dog. Said dog took offence to the little dog and picked it up/shook it doing damage in the process. (Puncture wounds, but nothing more serious - if the dog had really meant it the JRT would have been in serious trouble.) The owner of the JRT complained and my friends dog is now restricted. Fault is not always a good indicator of who will get the blame. Prevention is far better than cure IMO. The dog's owner probably went along with the DD order that council set, if that's what happened as described, it would be easy to over-ride that order if the defence was conducted effectively, however two dogs allowed in a tennis court requires effective control of the two dogs which makes things a bit more sticky to defend perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 What state are you in Mace? I'm in Victoria - I don't like my girl's chances if she is seen as aggressive, regardless of which dog is at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilly Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Some councils will seize and destroy dogs for a dog bite (with no history of agression) regardless of who started it ... Edited January 11, 2012 by Tilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Mace- EVERY council is different, you can't state that the leashed dog will not face serious repercussions- it depends on a wide and varied range of factors. Yes I can say Cosmolo, repercussions revolve around this: (Victorian legislation regarding dog bites and attacks) (9) In any proceeding for an offence under this section, it is a defence to that offence if the incident occurred because— (a) the dog was being teased, abused or assaulted; or (b) a person was trespassing on the premises on which the dog was kept; or © another animal was on the premises on which the dog was kept; or (d) a person known to the dog was being attacked in front of the dog. Councils can only adopt legislation provided for by the state animal management act, most are the same throughout Australia regarding dog bites and attacks. A leashed dog can attack an off leash dog in the situations above and if it's in a leash controlled area the defence is simple as it's written into the act. If the offending dog either teases, abuses or assults your dog or attacks you the handler, your dog can attack and bite the offending dog without repercussion, however, if the case is not presented properly or the owner of the leashed dog agrees that their dog acted improperly, prosecutions may arise in those cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I will be sure to let my clients that have experienced otherwise know this 'fact'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now