Rumpole Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 been busy with court cases and only just saw this. im glad you are not paying her anything and id advise anyone in the same situation to also refuse payment as it can be seen as an admission of responsibility and you are not responsible for this. you could (if you were girly enough to be scared of a pap ) have had her done for section three dangerously out of control causing apprehension that a person could be injured, (as you had to split up the fight you took a real chance of a little scared dog snapping at you out of fear)her dog could also have caused a serious accident as it ran across the road which could also have resulted in a claim being made against her. She should be ashamed of herself as a dog owner and think herself very lucky her dogs okay (poor thing didnt ask to have a crap owner) although i appreciate why you are muzzling daisy you dont have to and should another dog have a pop at her she is left unable to defend herself and none of this is her fault sorry youve had such a crap experience and well done the boys for keeping out of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Stupid woman I'd be reporting her to the dog warden anyway, cos you don't know if/when the gate is going to go up. I'd also be tempted to stand up the road with a video camera getting footage of her dogs running out of the garden, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 FFS she wanted £250 for what, or are you supposed to get her gates fitted for her. She's obviously OK with her dog running out at any dog that passes so she must take the consequences. I really hope that the police read her the riot act about being a responsible owner...... and all that 'what if it was a child carp' so winds me up. What if the pap had gone for a child eh? Little pap's sharp teeth can do a lot of damage to a toddler's face. Daisy was under your control and only defended herself against the pap who wasn't under control! I think she only got the cops involved when Ed refused to cough up, it's just too much of a coincidence, It was hard not to laugh when she said she wasn't bothered about the money, she just didn't want it to happen to anyone else.....yeah right. It is annoying when small dog owners have that, it's ok for my dog to do what it likes, attitude, unfortunately it's Daisy and her dog that are paying the price for her irresponsibility. If she don't want it to happen to anyone else then she should have F-ing gates in place!! Daisy has defended herself against the stupid cow's pap. If you don't want your dog to get hurt when he attacks another dog, then you keep the dog away. That's all there is to it. been busy with court cases and only just saw this. im glad you are not paying her anything and id advise anyone in the same situation to also refuse payment as it can be seen as an admission of responsibility and you are not responsible for this. you could (if you were girly enough to be scared of a pap ) have had her done for section three dangerously out of control causing apprehension that a person could be injured, (as you had to split up the fight you took a real chance of a little scared dog snapping at you out of fear)her dog could also have caused a serious accident as it ran across the road which could also have resulted in a claim being made against her. She should be ashamed of herself as a dog owner and think herself very lucky her dogs okay (poor thing didnt ask to have a crap owner) although i appreciate why you are muzzling daisy you dont have to and should another dog have a pop at her she is left unable to defend herself and none of this is her fault sorry youve had such a crap experience and well done the boys for keeping out of it Couldn't agree more, specially the point about muzzling Daisy. I would def not consider muzzling her, unless maybe the experience has caused her to be defensive to any other dog that comes along? Still, as long as she is on lead, I would consider it the other dog's owner's responsibility to keep their dog in check. The fact that your boys didn't join in shows how incredibly well raised they are and they all are a credit to you :flowers: Stupid woman I'd be reporting her to the dog warden anyway, cos you don't know if/when the gate is going to go up. I'd also be tempted to stand up the road with a video camera getting footage of her dogs running out of the garden, just in case. Good plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Thanks for the advice Mel I know only a court can order me to muzzle Daisy, but I'd feel terrible if she did that to a puppy that was to silly to keep away, she won't need to wear it on every walk, there are plenty of places to go round here where I won't see another dog. Eddie asked the police woman what constituted having your dog under control, she said it was being able to call your dog off another dog and having the dog on lead, well Daisy did have a hold of the other dogs leg and I did have to manually open her mouth, so if all thats true then she wasn't under control despite being on a short lead . I just realised last night that the woman lied about where she was in the garden which is a bit odd, she said she was putting a bin out, I clearly saw her crouched down by the fence gardening, the first notion I had that the dog was there was because she screamed at it to stay, which it obviously didn't, don't understand why she'd lie about that, I can't see as it would make any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I just realised last night that the woman lied about where she was in the garden which is a bit odd, she said she was putting a bin out, I clearly saw her crouched down by the fence gardening, the first notion I had that the dog was there was because she screamed at it to stay, which it obviously didn't, don't understand why she'd lie about that, I can't see as it would make any difference. i would think that by just popping a bin out it made it seem as if the dog was only there unsecured in the garden for a few moments so a pure accident that it got out where as if she had said she was doing her gardening she would appear as negligent (which she was) and so she would be made out to be the guilty party (which she is) as gardening takes time and she deliberately allowed her dog to be roaming untethered in an unsecure garden.... which it would seem is a regular occurence i don't see how daisy could be deemed to be out of control.... she didn't approach the other dog... she didn't start it .... i was told that a dog is deemed under control if it is on lead and the owner is not being dragged here there and everywhere by the dog... at no point was being able to call a onlead dog off an object mentioned sorry but i think daisy is being made the scapegoat because of her breed and i would really like to know where the officer got her information regarding a dog being out of control.... you quite often see the police dogs having to be told 3 or 4 times to leave go of something.... are they also out of control? i am absolutely livid on your behalf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 agree with everything griff said and on top of that dog on dog is only covered in one act currently which is the animal welfare act 2006 and the intention in that act is that a deliberate act of negligence (ie setting your dog on something purposefully)which causes suffering. In the other legislation then only if your dog is dangerously out of control and injures or causes reasonable apprehension that it might injure a person do the acts apply. Even the 1871 dogs act requires some sort of non control and dangerousness for it to be applied. Your dog was neither dangerous nor out of control she was simply minding her own business when she was attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 A dog wearing a muzzle could still do damage to a small dog by bashing it with the muzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I used to have a Lab/Rough Collie Samantha, we had to pass a house with a Boxer bitch every time we took her out, Sam was always on the lead on the roads. This Boxer would run out barking at Sam, if she got close enough she would jump on her. All I got from her owners was, "She just wants to play." I had many arguments with them over this, Sam was frightened. One day it happened again only this time Sam attacked, unfortunately one of her teeth caught the Boxer's eye and she had to have it taken out. I was terrible upset that Sam had done this then realised that these owners had continually ignored my requests not to let their dog race out to mine. I refused to pay the vet bill so they sent the police, said Sam was out of control. Thankfully we had a lot of witnesses over the years that I continually asked these people not to let their dog do this and this was the only time that Sam retaliated. The owners were told to keep their dog under control in future. It is very stresful for you but she is responsible for her dogs not you so I wouldn't muzzle my dog especially a Staffy who do have problems with muzzles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurel n Hardy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Also agree with what everyone is saying, especially Alex who suggested contacting the dog warden, as they may have a file of complaints against this person/dog anyway. it's a horrible thing to do or say but if any dog pounces on any of mine and i couldnt prevent it by normal means it gets a left boot sharpish. So sorry you and Daisy have had to go through this, personally I would hold off on the muzzle, as this woman might see it as a victory,and call the police back " see see she's muzzled it now, it must be dangerous" etc etc from me and my lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 i would think that by just popping a bin out it made it seem as if the dog was only there unsecured in the garden for a few moments so a pure accident that it got out where as if she had said she was doing her gardening she would appear as negligent (which she was) and so she would be made out to be the guilty party (which she is) as gardening takes time and she deliberately allowed her dog to be roaming untethered in an unsecure garden.... which it would seem is a regular occurence Bugger, didn't think of that. agree with everything griff said and on top of that dog on dog is only covered in one act currently which is the animal welfare act 2006 and the intention in that act is that a deliberate act of negligence (ie setting your dog on something purposefully)which causes suffering. In the other legislation then only if your dog is dangerously out of control and injures or causes reasonable apprehension that it might injure a person do the acts apply. Even the 1871 dogs act requires some sort of non control and dangerousness for it to be applied. Your dog was neither dangerous nor out of control she was simply minding her own business when she was attacked. So legally I am in the clear and this is all just a dispute ? A dog wearing a muzzle could still do damage to a small dog by bashing it with the muzzle. true, knowing my luck that's just what would happen. It is very stresful for you but she is responsible for her dogs not you so I wouldn't muzzle my dog especially a Staffy who do have problems with muzzles. I know and I feel rotten for putting it on her wee face, but she was pretty good with it today, she had it on for a few minutes at a time and then off again on our walk . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 So legally I am in the clear and this is all just a dispute ? yep you are in the clear she is not it is illegal for a dog to be off lead on a highway. it was dangerously out of control as per requirements under the dda section 3 and whilst it was engaged in combat with daisy you were the person who had reasonable apprehension that it might injure a person (you)whilst splitting them up. And as per the 1871 dogs act she was the owner of a dog that was not under proper control and showed itself to be dangerous a dog can show itself to be dangerous in this act by its general behaviour not just its behaviour towards a person. a single incident may be unlikely to be sufficient to prove the dog is dangerous, unless the court believes that single incident to be exceptional, but this lady has no gate and her dogs regularly act in this way. Your dog was on lead and you took steps to keep her safe from attack by this ladies dog by crossing the road, it was not like daisy grabbed the dog as she was passing it in the street in which case a muzzle would be a good idea, she was defending herself from a threat which presented itself to her which is natural behaviour and justified. Had daisy been muzzled and unable to defend herself then it could have been you with the vets bill and had a car swerved to avoid this silly womans dog and crashed causing injuries then this woman would be in serious trouble and still should be in my book. No offence to responsible owners of small dogs but it seems to be a growing trend that some irresponsible owners of small/toy breeds seem to think that because their dog is small and cute that the law doesnt apply to them and it bloody does, and then when they are charged it is their dog that pays the price. sorry rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico's mum Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 No offence to responsible owners of small dogs but it seems to be a growing trend that some irresponsible owners of small/toy breeds seem to think that because their dog is small and cute that the law doesnt apply to them and it bloody does, and then when they are charged it is their dog that pays the price. sorry rant over Especially Terriers sadly,and they are tenacious little whatsits that can inflict quite a lot of damage as well. Agree with the others about not muzzling Daisy,the Pap owner is 100% in the wrong here,and she's been damned lucky her dogs haven't been killed by either another dog whose owner may not have been as quick witted as you or by a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 yep you are in the clear she is not it is illegal for a dog to be off lead on a highway. it was dangerously out of control as per requirements under the dda section 3 and whilst it was engaged in combat with daisy you were the person who had reasonable apprehension that it might injure a person (you)whilst splitting them up. And as per the 1871 dogs act she was the owner of a dog that was not under proper control and showed itself to be dangerous a dog can show itself to be dangerous in this act by its general behaviour not just its behaviour towards a person. a single incident may be unlikely to be sufficient to prove the dog is dangerous, unless the court believes that single incident to be exceptional, but this lady has no gate and her dogs regularly act in this way. Your dog was on lead and you took steps to keep her safe from attack by this ladies dog by crossing the road, it was not like daisy grabbed the dog as she was passing it in the street in which case a muzzle would be a good idea, she was defending herself from a threat which presented itself to her which is natural behaviour and justified. Had daisy been muzzled and unable to defend herself then it could have been you with the vets bill and had a car swerved to avoid this silly womans dog and crashed causing injuries then this woman would be in serious trouble and still should be in my book. No offence to responsible owners of small dogs but it seems to be a growing trend that some irresponsible owners of small/toy breeds seem to think that because their dog is small and cute that the law doesnt apply to them and it bloody does, and then when they are charged it is their dog that pays the price. sorry rant over very well put Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 yep you are in the clear she is not it is illegal for a dog to be off lead on a highway. it was dangerously out of control as per requirements under the dda section 3 and whilst it was engaged in combat with daisy you were the person who had reasonable apprehension that it might injure a person (you)whilst splitting them up. And as per the 1871 dogs act she was the owner of a dog that was not under proper control and showed itself to be dangerous a dog can show itself to be dangerous in this act by its general behaviour not just its behaviour towards a person. a single incident may be unlikely to be sufficient to prove the dog is dangerous, unless the court believes that single incident to be exceptional, but this lady has no gate and her dogs regularly act in this way. Your dog was on lead and you took steps to keep her safe from attack by this ladies dog by crossing the road, it was not like daisy grabbed the dog as she was passing it in the street in which case a muzzle would be a good idea, she was defending herself from a threat which presented itself to her which is natural behaviour and justified. Had daisy been muzzled and unable to defend herself then it could have been you with the vets bill and had a car swerved to avoid this silly womans dog and crashed causing injuries then this woman would be in serious trouble and still should be in my book. No offence to responsible owners of small dogs but it seems to be a growing trend that some irresponsible owners of small/toy breeds seem to think that because their dog is small and cute that the law doesnt apply to them and it bloody does, and then when they are charged it is their dog that pays the price. sorry rant over I can't tell you how much better that's made me feel, if I was a bloke I'd give you a snog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura_E Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Sad to say, but I wonder what the reaction would have been of Daisy had been another breed. What breed is Daisy, just out of curiosity? There is a woman that walks her dog in our local park and he is always attacking bigger dogs. He is a jack russell and once he gets going she has absolutely no control over him whatsoever. He regularly attack my friends lab/rottie cross, to the point that they no longer use that park any more. Maz (my friends dog) is 11 years old and quite arthritic so he can't even run away. My friend has spoken to the woman on numerous occasions and told her that she would be reporting her to the council, which the woman found highly amusing as is it turns out she is the local councillor! The last time Maz was attacked my friend really lost her temper and ended up grabbing the JRT and throwing him at the woman. She felt awful afterwards, but she was doing what she had to do to protect her dog and the owner made no attempt to control him so she had no other options. But the woman went to police over the matter! When Bouncer was alive the woman had the audacity to come right over to us so that she could test her dogs reaction because, in her words 'he doesn't like lab crosses' I wonder how she would have reacted if my friend had taken Maz over to her dog to test his reaction to jack russells, I suspect not too favourably. Anyway, sorry- I've gone off topic a bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts