New Uk Laws Prosecting Dog Owners If They Scare Children

[Maddy]

Personally, I think governments would be better off spending money on educating parents and children about why it is not okay for kids to trepass, even for "innocent" reasons.

Recently, I almost lost my sheep after the kids next door to the property came over to retrieve a football. The fences are solid (better than a lot of rural fencing) and the sheep had never escaped before. The kids told their parents that they did nothing but get the ball and go straight back over the fence, the neighbour on the other side mentioned seeing the kids chasing the sheep, which would definitely be enough to panic them into going through fencing (we were very lucky that people nearby saw them and were able to catch them and put them back). The same kids have been been getting into sheds on the property and doing other damage. We tried to bring this up with the parents but they were very dismissive of our concerns "oh, kids will be kids, no harm intended".

If one of my sheep had been cornered with no way of getting past, he would use his horns and very possibly injure a child. Unfortunately, sheep aren't covered under insurance so I would likely have to pay any medical bills for them, even though they were trespassing and caused the injuries anyway. Way to teach children to be responsible for their own behaviour.

Legislating away the need to be responsible for one's own actions does not seem like a wise idea and has some very nasty potential ramifications.

[Dame Aussie]

Agree. The whole "Kids will be kids" thing does my head in. Kids will act the way they are taught to act.

[OSoSwift]

Agree. The whole "Kids will be kids" thing does my head in. Kids will act the way they are taught to act.

Exactly!

I used to get pissed when one of my kids who used to be a right little turd at times would be a turd and my MIL would say oh he is just being 2, then 3, then 4. One day I said so when he is an arse and he's 18 is it just because he's 18 or excuses have been made for his behaviour growing up and then he is just an arse?? The only way he will learn to not be an arse or that there are consequenses for being an arse is to be taught them now.

She did admit she thought I was right and never again did those qords pass her lips when he got reprimanded or corrected for being a turd!

[Ronda]

If my kids climbed into someone yatd and got frightened by the dog they would get their backsides paddled for entering someone elses property without permission!

Climbing into someones yard

That's a paddlin'

[tdierikx]

Today's society is seriously messed up.

children have all of these "rights" and absolutely NO responsibility.

Not to mention that pretty much every new law is aimed at the completely stupid in order to protect them from self harm... grrr!

Darwin had this very good theory back in the day... so we now make laws so the idiots don't succumb to it... *sigh*

T.

[megan_]

But how is the dog meant to know the difference? Dogs can be territorial, especially when the owner isn't there and someone hops over their fence. If they react that doesn't make them an aggressive dog.

FWIW, I never trespassed as a kid, it would never enter my mind to hop over someone's fence. If I did and got scared by a dog, my mum would have told me it was my own fault.

Dog legislation is difficult to write well. Unfortunately, we only know which dogs are REALLY REALLY dangerous after they maim or kill someone.

The law in discussion has not been enacted yet, and is likely to be revised. Hopefully it will be judicially enforced in whatever form it takes.

I do think societies need some way to give notice to people that keeping a 'junk yard' dog in the front yard is asking for trouble. I'd much rather see menacing dogs get reported and owners warned, reprimanded, fined, etc. than to have 100% of a dog breed banned because a small minority are truly dangerous.

The article says "Speaking to the Commons last month Mr Heath added: 'It is different for a garden, or sometimes even a shed. A child going to pick up a football that has been kicked into a garden should not be set upon by a dangerous dog.

'They may be an intruder, but they are nevertheless not a burglar or anyone with malicious intent. A public–interest test must be satisfied before a prosecution can be brought. I hope that the guidance to the prosecuting authority will make that distinction clear,' The Daily Telegraph reported.

With clear guidance to the prosecuting authority, I think such a law could be a big improvement over the Victorian approach to dangerous dogs.

I'd just like to address the bolded part above. Just how do they expect a dog to know the difference between a child trespassing to retrieve a ball and a burglar or someone of 'malicious intent'? I'm sure all dogs couldn't make the distinction -- act differently yes, but not know the intent of the trespasser. Are they expecting dogs to sit a course on human profiling now?

They do not expect a dog to recognize malicious intent. Nor do they expect kids to have good judgement. They were hoping that whoever frames the law in its final form will allow the judge or some other authority to consider the public interest. That is, it is in the public interest to scare off the bad guys. It is not in the public interest to have dogs put their teeth into local kids being naughty.

Did you never trespass when you were a kid?

[BlackJaq]

Personally, I think governments would be better off spending money on educating parents and children about why it is not okay for kids to trepass, even for "innocent" reasons.

Recently, I almost lost my sheep after the kids next door to the property came over to retrieve a football. The fences are solid (better than a lot of rural fencing) and the sheep had never escaped before. The kids told their parents that they did nothing but get the ball and go straight back over the fence, the neighbour on the other side mentioned seeing the kids chasing the sheep, which would definitely be enough to panic them into going through fencing (we were very lucky that people nearby saw them and were able to catch them and put them back). The same kids have been been getting into sheds on the property and doing other damage. We tried to bring this up with the parents but they were very dismissive of our concerns "oh, kids will be kids, no harm intended".

If one of my sheep had been cornered with no way of getting past, he would use his horns and very possibly injure a child. Unfortunately, sheep aren't covered under insurance so I would likely have to pay any medical bills for them, even though they were trespassing and caused the injuries anyway. Way to teach children to be responsible for their own behaviour.

Legislating away the need to be responsible for one's own actions does not seem like a wise idea and has some very nasty potential ramifications.

Once again, sounds like a job for hotwire ;) (it's nearly as useful as duct tape hehe)

Edited July 4, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Maddy]

Personally, I think governments would be better off spending money on educating parents and children about why it is not okay for kids to trepass, even for "innocent" reasons.

Recently, I almost lost my sheep after the kids next door to the property came over to retrieve a football. The fences are solid (better than a lot of rural fencing) and the sheep had never escaped before. The kids told their parents that they did nothing but get the ball and go straight back over the fence, the neighbour on the other side mentioned seeing the kids chasing the sheep, which would definitely be enough to panic them into going through fencing (we were very lucky that people nearby saw them and were able to catch them and put them back). The same kids have been been getting into sheds on the property and doing other damage. We tried to bring this up with the parents but they were very dismissive of our concerns "oh, kids will be kids, no harm intended".

If one of my sheep had been cornered with no way of getting past, he would use his horns and very possibly injure a child. Unfortunately, sheep aren't covered under insurance so I would likely have to pay any medical bills for them, even though they were trespassing and caused the injuries anyway. Way to teach children to be responsible for their own behaviour.

Legislating away the need to be responsible for one's own actions does not seem like a wise idea and has some very nasty potential ramifications.

Once again, sounds like a job for hotwire ;) (it's nearly as useful as duct tape hehe)

Very tempting.. only to keep the sheep in, of course

[Phyria]

Personally, I think governments would be better off spending money on educating parents and children about why it is not okay for kids to trepass, even for "innocent" reasons.

Recently, I almost lost my sheep after the kids next door to the property came over to retrieve a football. The fences are solid (better than a lot of rural fencing) and the sheep had never escaped before. The kids told their parents that they did nothing but get the ball and go straight back over the fence, the neighbour on the other side mentioned seeing the kids chasing the sheep, which would definitely be enough to panic them into going through fencing (we were very lucky that people nearby saw them and were able to catch them and put them back). The same kids have been been getting into sheds on the property and doing other damage. We tried to bring this up with the parents but they were very dismissive of our concerns "oh, kids will be kids, no harm intended".

If one of my sheep had been cornered with no way of getting past, he would use his horns and very possibly injure a child. Unfortunately, sheep aren't covered under insurance so I would likely have to pay any medical bills for them, even though they were trespassing and caused the injuries anyway. Way to teach children to be responsible for their own behaviour.

Legislating away the need to be responsible for one's own actions does not seem like a wise idea and has some very nasty potential ramifications.

Can you set up cameras? Next time they break something make them pay for it.

I'll also vote in favour of hotwire :D they'll be shocked to discover it!

[BlackJaq]

Yep, cattle voltage should do the trick lol

Seriously though, it sounds mean but I bet you wish you did it if somebody hit your sheep in their car and dies just because their parent refuse to control their children. A little pain now will save a lot of pain later and it beats the heck out of those kids climbing some fence one day and an angry dog being on the other side, ready to chomp their bums up a bit :p

[Steph M]

That's absurd. Kenny would have been in big trouble, because the next door neighbours kids used to jump the fence to retrieve their balls. They stopped doing it after a couple of weeks, because they couldn't stand Kenny licking their faces & running off with the ball, wanting them to chase him.

They used to come to my door when I was home & ask if I could throw it back over the fence. Poor Kenny lost his playmates.

Yep. Gus would be in the same boat 'OH MY GOD. HUMAN PUPPIES. YESSSSSSSSS!'

Does love a soccer ball too.

How ludicrous though!

[sandgrubber]

By my reading, the Calgary dog ordinances, which everyone holds up as the gold standard for controlling vicious dogs, might also put people up for fines if a dog showed menacing behavior toward kids who entered the yard to fetch a ball. I dont know the legal definition of tresspasser in Calgary, but I doubt it includes kids chasing a ball. Here's the text: The Owner of an Animal shall ensure that such Animal shall not:

• (1) Bite, bark at, or chase stock, Animals, bicycles, automobiles, or othervehicles;
• (2) Chase or otherwise threaten a person or persons, whether on the propertyof the Owner or not, unless the person chased or threatened is atrespasser on the property of the Owner;
• (3) Cause damage to property or other Animals, whether on the property ofthe Owner or not;
• (4) Do any act that injures a person or persons whether on the property of theOwner or not;
• (5) Bite a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not;
• (6) Attack a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not;
• (7) Attack a person or persons, whether on the property of the Owner or not,causing severe physical injury; or
• (8) Cause death to another Animal.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I did it the other month as I dropped something over my neighbours fence. Called ahead to the dog to try and get its blessing but no sign of it, so I went over, not all that worried as it's only a Staffy shy of 20kg but still.... Had she ripped me a new one whose fault's that?! World's gone mad I tells ya.

Edited July 24, 2013 by KungLao

[sandgrubber]

1374654311[/url]' post='6262200']

I did it the other month as I dropped something over my neighbours fence. Called ahead to the dog to try and get its blessing but no sign of it, so I went over, not all that worried as it's only a Staffy shy of 20kg but still.... Had she ripped me a new one whose fault's that?! World's gone mad I tells ya.

I don't think it's a question of fault. If she had ripped you it would have been appropriate that she be flagged as vicious and her owners given a kick in the butt to encourage them to get her to a behaviouist or put up a 'dangerous dog' sign. If the goal is to prevent dog attacks, dogs with a tendency to attack need to be identified and put into some sort of management that makes them less dangerous. Waiting till the dog does serious damage and then euth'ing it is not nice.

[Steph M]

I know for sure if a little kid jumped our fence and picked up a toy, whether his or Gus's, he would probably get licked to bits. However, Gus is getting big at about 13kg and could easily knock a kid over. I would hope it never happened, but the idea of him being declared dangerous for a goofy puppy game in his own yard is a bit frightening. We're working on not jumping on people, but if no one is home all bets might be off. He loves kids.

And yeah, as a kid I jumped a fence and got bitten on the ankle by a heeler, I knew it was my fault, mum didn't like the dog and worried because the owners had little kids of their own, it was known to be nasty but still was my fault, more so because this was a known fact. It's not all about putting fault on trespassers, but you can not blame the dog for doing what it's meant to do.

Not that the dog is blameless, it seems like a shared blame and a gamble you take hopping over a fence.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Steph M

[sandgrubber]

It would be interesting to know how many people have been prosecuted in Calgary for dogs attacking people or other animals on their owner's property. I would guess the number is quite small, and I'd hope it didn't include puppies who knocked a kid over and licked her or his face.

Has anyone seen anything written on this?

[melzawelza]

It would be interesting to know how many people have been prosecuted in Calgary for dogs attacking people or other animals on their owner's property. I would guess the number is quite small, and I'd hope it didn't include puppies who knocked a kid over and licked her or his face.

Has anyone seen anything written on this?

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property.

The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is:

trespassing present participle of tres·pass (Verb)

Verb

Enter the owner's land or property without permission.

Make unfair claims on or take advantage of (something).

Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence.

The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission.

Edited July 25, 2013 by melzawelza

[melzawelza]

1374654311[/url]' post='6262200']

I did it the other month as I dropped something over my neighbours fence. Called ahead to the dog to try and get its blessing but no sign of it, so I went over, not all that worried as it's only a Staffy shy of 20kg but still.... Had she ripped me a new one whose fault's that?! World's gone mad I tells ya.

I don't think it's a question of fault. If she had ripped you it would have been appropriate that she be flagged as vicious and her owners given a kick in the butt to encourage them to get her to a behaviouist or put up a 'dangerous dog' sign. If the goal is to prevent dog attacks, dogs with a tendency to attack need to be identified and put into some sort of management that makes them less dangerous. Waiting till the dog does serious damage and then euth'ing it is not nice.

Flagged as vicious? Dangerous dog warnings? In this hypothetical situation the dog bit an intruder on the property. Are dogs not allowed to be dogs anymore??

Certainly in NSW there would be no action that Could be taken by Council as the attack is not an offence if the person was trespassing on the dog's property. If the dog KILLED the intruder then maybe you could go after them under 'unreasonable aggression' but it'd be a precarious ledge you were balanced on.

[sandgrubber]

1374712316[/url]' post='6262674']

1374711805[/url]' post='6262669']

It would be interesting to know how many people have been prosecuted in Calgary for dogs attacking people or other animals on their owner's property. I would guess the number is quite small, and I'd hope it didn't include puppies who knocked a kid over and licked her or his face.

Has anyone seen anything written on this?

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property.

The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is:

trespassing present participle of tres·pass (Verb)

Verb

Enter the owner's land or property without permission.

Make unfair claims on or take advantage of (something).

Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence.

The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission.

This comes from. Legal-help FAQ that seems to be Canada-wide. http://www.cliapei.c...ations/CRI6.pdf

If my neighbour's children wander into my yard, are they trespassing?

The Trespass to Property Act says that no child under the age of twelve may beprosecuted for trespassing. Children often wander from their own yards, and usually thesituation can be dealt with by asking them to leave or by calling their parents.

Edited July 25, 2013 by sandgrubber

[melzawelza]

1374712316[/url]' post='6262674']

1374711805[/url]' post='6262669']

It would be interesting to know how many people have been prosecuted in Calgary for dogs attacking people or other animals on their owner's property. I would guess the number is quite small, and I'd hope it didn't include puppies who knocked a kid over and licked her or his face.

Has anyone seen anything written on this?

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property.

The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is:

trespassing present participle of tres·pass (Verb)

Verb

Enter the owner's land or property without permission.

Make unfair claims on or take advantage of (something).

Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence.

The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission.

This comes from. Legal-help FAQ that seems to be Canada-wide. http://www.cliapei.c...ations/CRI6.pdf

If my neighbour's children wander into my yard, are they trespassing?

The Trespass to Property Act says that no child under the age of twelve may beprosecuted for trespassing. Children often wander from their own yards, and usually thesituation can be dealt with by asking them to leave or by calling their parents.

Interesting, but the situation we're talking about wouldn't be about prosecuting the child, it's about the behaviour of the dog, and whether the relevant Act or Bylaw provides for action against the dog/owner. Unless there is a definition for 'trespassing' in the Calgary Bylaws for that specific Act, you would usually go by the the dictionary definition. I'd be very interesting to see what the Calgary Officer's interpretation of their bylaw provides for. My hunch is that there is defence for the dog.