# dog attack



## nikkianddave (13 September 2017)

Hello, just looking for some advice please for a friend

her dog has bitten a delivery man, quite badly on his arm and you could actually see his bone

the dog is an Italian mastiff.

We know the law has changed on dangerous dogs on your own private property which is why we are asking for advice

the has signs everywhere saying do not enter, the delivery man (which we know are protected even more so entering private property) entered the property and the dog attacked him

the owner took the man to hospital, and called his workplace numerous times to check on him

she has now put preventative measures in place, i.e the dog is muzzled when outside, even in her private property and she has ordered kennels for him

the police came out to see her and took a statement, and as far as she was lead to believe it had been recorded and no further action was being taken

today she has received a letter from the court, being charged with "owner/person in charge of dog dangerously out of control causing injury"

it is clear that the person the dog attached is pressing charges, or the police if it is out of his control, which is all completely acceptable giving the dog did attack him

We would just like some advise on what may happen in court? could she be fined, or worse? could the dog be seized or would this have been done already if that was going to happen?

the owner is going to the solicitor today to get some legal advice

Please no nasty comments, the dog is a much loved family dog and hasn't bitten anyone before, but he is a protection dog and obviously this is heartbreaking for his owner


----------



## angrybird1 (13 September 2017)

I think your friend is right in getting legal advise.  The court could order that the dog is kept under control or I'm afraid that,the dog is destroyed.
I don't think the fact that there were warning signs is any excuse.
You could also find that they may make your friend pay damages.ie loss of earnings etc.  Could be tricky I'm afraid.

.


----------



## gunnergundog (13 September 2017)

Trevor Cooper is your man for advice  http://www.doglaw.co.uk/


----------



## CMcC (13 September 2017)

This link might be useful http://www.doglaw.co.uk/section-3-dangerous-dogs-act-1991/


----------



## MagicMelon (13 September 2017)

I think she should be seen to do everything in her power meantime to try to ensure this doesn't happen again - you mentioned muzzling the dog when outside and getting a kennel made to keep the dog in properly. The court would hopefully see that you've gone to every effort to contain the dog to stop it happening again. I also dont think signs help her case hugely. Has the dog got a history of ever doing anything like this before? If so, it'll obviously work against it massively. I guess worst case is the owner is fined and the dog is destroyed...


----------



## Goldenstar (13 September 2017)

Your friend need to set up the house so the dog and delivery men and others going to the door cannot come into contact with it .
This does sound like it was a nip so tbh if I where your friend I would be getting the dog PTS now while I was in control of the situation .
Of course she needs good legal advice but really you have no defence for something like that .
Awful thing for everyone .


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2017)

Whilst this won't be the most popular view perhaps,  the dog needs to be destroyed and your friend,  nikkianddave needs to face the full force of the Law.  Seek legal advice by all means,  but accepting full responsibility for a dangerous dog,  no matter how contrite the owner now is,  is the responsibility of the owner of the dog.

The case should also be given as wide a public airing as possible with all those who keep any breed of dogs which they are unable to control, facing up to the reality that had the injured person been a foreign national who couldn't read english,  or a small child or a person with learning or comprehension difficulties,  the result could have been far worse.

It would seem from the attempts already in place that your friend was well aware of the liability which they have under their care and from here,  not one ounce of sympathy for the owner.

Not a nasty comment OP just simple facts.

Alec.


----------



## Moobli (13 September 2017)

gunnergundog said:



			Trevor Cooper is your man for advice  http://www.doglaw.co.uk/

Click to expand...

Absolutely this - get your friend to speak to Trevor Cooper asap.  He is the expert in dog law in the UK.


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 September 2017)

A fine and at best a control order and at worst a destruction order.

I have huge issues with how and why 'protection dogs' (that will be a massive red flag legally BTW) are being sold to members of the public in an unregulated fashion and in some cases without either dog or handler receiving proper training.
Guard dogs and their handlers must be licensed by law and the animals are never allowed to be left unattended on (a fully secured) property.

Sorry for everyone involved.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (13 September 2017)

agree with Alec  totally on this-if it were mine it would be PTS already.


----------



## nikkianddave (13 September 2017)

I agree with all comments, if it was mine it would have been PTS too, but it hasn't been and she's hoping for best case scenario although it is more than likely he will be PTS. He wasn't sold as a protection dog, she has had him from a pup and this is what he has grown into. 
It is totally out of character, the signs are there to deter people from entering, the dog hasn't ever bitten before but then on the other hand he hasn't ever had the chance to before.
Completely agree with everyone's opinions, but she is just looking for advice on what may happen next and not opinions on the situation 

tia


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 September 2017)

Ok fair enough but she should definitely not use that terminology if she wants to give the dog any sort of chance.


----------



## Dobiegirl (13 September 2017)

Has this dog had any form of training ie any certificates such as the KC Good Citizen awards, any evidence like this would be I imagine very useful to show to a court rather than the words of the owner Or perhaps a report by a trainer or behaviourist as to the good character of this dog, this would then point to the owner as being a responsible person and the new measures put in place to show how this could never happen again.


----------



## Fidgety (13 September 2017)

Sorry, totally with Alec.  One of my children suffered life changing injuries after an attack by a dog so therefore I am highly biased.  Your friend's dog might not have been sold as a 'protection dog' to them but any responsible expectant owner would research the characteristics of the breed they were purchasing.


----------



## YorksG (13 September 2017)

I have to say that the dog should never have been in a position where it came into contact with the delivery person. We have two (none dangerous) Rottweilers, heavy and loud, one of them appears to have decided that protecting her people is her job, they cannot access people coming to our front door, the yard and the back door are behind a locked gate, with a dog and people, proof fence


----------



## Alec Swan (13 September 2017)

gunnergundog said:



			Trevor Cooper is your man for advice  http://www.doglaw.co.uk/

Click to expand...

When I next read that someone has been charged with Drink Driving,  then should I perhaps suggest that they seek,  or dare I say recommend and as you seem to do,  a practise who specialise in lessening their responsibility?  Just as we accept that the person who drives a car whilst unfit to do so through alcohol should face their responsibilities,  so those who keep a dog,  and despite the claim that they'e taken the steps that they believed would protect others,  fail abysmally,  then those persons are no less complicit.

*"I didn't know that the gun was loaded" is no defence.*  The person who puts the lives and well being of others at risk because they keep a breed or type of dog with a known propensity for aggression,  has no greater a degree of defence than the person who gets behind the wheel of a car whilst unfit through alcohol.  

Alec.


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 September 2017)

Same as YorksG....dogs should never be put in this position. Yet we have another poster on another thread expressing concern about a potential accident waiting to happen with a dog that's a known biter according to the owner, and they are being told not to worry about it as nothing has happened yet.

Alec in fairness lots of lawyers specialise in lots of types of cases, that's why we have family lawyers, divorce lawyers, Mr Loophole types and yes, lawyers who are good at mitigating in DUI cases. That's their job, it's no different from asking for or suggesting a recommendation for a plumber. The Op's mate probably doesn't want to go to court unrepresented.


----------



## GirlFriday (14 September 2017)

How sad for both delivery guy and dog.

Really not of the opinion that this kind of animal is a suitable pet. But given that this one has been treated as a pet sad for the owners too.

What on earth did they think delivery people were going to do though? Just not deliver and return parcels to sender?!? Did they have a mail box set up that could be accessed from outside the property? Locked gates with intercom? Hypothetical questions but would imagine that if this person wishes to make things safer with this/any future dog they'll need to do this... something that size could injure someone just by leaping at it muzzled tbh.

But if the dog is going to be shut in a small pen (I'm assuming that is what is meant by kennels in this instance) for much of the time (why would it not be shut in the house with more space to roam & family company?) then I'm afraid there gets to be a quality of life issue fairly quickly. I mean what would the owner be keeping it alive for?

Having known a dog that spent a few weeks in police kennels if the worst was looking likely I'd definitely be asking the solicitor representing to ask to have owner's own vet pts at home (or perhaps owner take to vet given how dog feels about strangers visiting!) immediately.

Might be worth getting owner to have a chat to either their dog's own breeder or a breed-specific rescue (google finds some) for advice from someone who understands the breed...


----------



## gunnergundog (14 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			When I next read that someone has been charged with Drink Driving,  then should I perhaps suggest that they seek,  or dare I say recommend and as you seem to do,  a practise who specialise in lessening their responsibility?  Just as we accept that the person who drives a car whilst unfit to do so through alcohol should face their responsibilities,  so those who keep a dog,  and despite the claim that they'e taken the steps that they believed would protect others,  fail abysmally,  then those persons are no less complicit.

*"I didn't know that the gun was loaded" is no defence.*  The person who puts the lives and well being of others at risk because they keep a breed or type of dog with a known propensity for aggression,  has no greater a degree of defence than the person who gets behind the wheel of a car whilst unfit through alcohol.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec....whether you like it or not everyone is entitled to legal representation.  Some areas of the law are so niche that they attract very few specialists; it is such individuals, rather than the general practitioner, who are best placed to advise as to what is likely to happen in court which is the information that the OP requested.

You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.


----------



## Clodagh (14 September 2017)

I can see that the owner is going to need legal representation. Even if they do the right thing and have the dog PTS immediately they probably still need to fight being sued for a lot of money, if the bone was showing it could well be a life changing injury and delivery drivers don't tend to be rich to start with. Or does your house insurance cover you for that sort of thing?
When we insure our dogs they always ask if they are showing any aggressive tendencies, seeing as they are 8 weeks old it is a pretty clear cut no. On the basis that you should inform your insurer if anything changes presumably the first time the dog went for someone (which it must have done to make the woman try to fence it off and put signs up) they should have been informed. I doubt they would then have continued to offer cover. As they were not - again presumably - told the dog was now dangerous - would that negate your cover?


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 September 2017)

No pet insurer would cover a known biter/a dog used for security work or trained to bite on command.
Just out of intetest, I've read the small print of some policies and if a dog bites a family member or someone in a party you are travelling with/known to you, it can also be rendered void.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2017)

gunnergundog said:



			.. You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.
		
Click to expand...

So what are your views?  Do you believe that those who keep a dangerous dog and one which occasions grievous bodily harm upon an innocent victim have any defence,  or would you suggest that just as the person who's found to be drunk whilst driving,  that they're entitled to face the full force of the Law,  regardless of mitigation?

Having read your previous post,  I took your thoughts at what most would consider to be face value,  not conjecture.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2017)

Considering those breeds of dog which for generations have been bred and kept for their guarding abilities,  and/or their leanings towards violence,  dogs which are all so often beyond the capabilities of the average pet home,  I do wonder if the Dangerous Dog's Act shouldn't be expanded and to include those breeds which are now being imported,  often to cross-breed and which are all so often little more than time-bombs.  I'm tempted to think that as there's little use for them,  beyond pet ownership,  there should either be a clear cut ban or,  as in the case of exotic animals,  the owners should be individually licensed and without clear evidence that the owner has experience of such dogs,  and the facilities to contain them,  a licence should be refused.  We can no longer keep lions in our back garden without authority,  so we seem to be approaching the need for ever more legislation.

Whilst I'm firmly of the belief that the inexperienced take on these rather exotic creatures for reasons beyond the comprehension of most,  the blanket ban on ALL dogs with a tendency through their lineage towards aggression,  the risk is that swept up in to the heap will be GSDs,  Rottweilers and the Doberman.  These three breeds specifically will have the odd dog which is a throwback,  but to lump them all in to the same demonised group would be wrong,  clearly.

'Education' is pointless because those who see the cute bundle of appealing fluff at 8 weeks fail to understand that without considerable care and attention to detail,  they will end up with a dangerous liability.  

The DG has a friend who's a health professional and she's animal and pet mad.  She acquired 3 lambs and one Sunday morning we had an urgent 'phone call asking for help as 2 of them were fly-struck.  I went over and they were in a rather poor state.  I treated them,  cleaned them up and applied cooling and antibiotic treatments.  We looked around the garden and there were sheds and cages everywhere,  chickens,  pheasants,  an aviary full of small birds,  guinea-pigs,  rabbits and ferrets (separated).  When we'd done the lady asked me if I'd like to see her dog.  It was a 9 month old crossbred Mastiff of some sort.  I enquired and she did tell me but I've forgotten its precise parentage but she mentioned Neapolitan I think,  though they were of imported origin.  Thankfully between this pup and I there was a fairly stout picket fence.  The pup walked out,  I ignored him and he launched himself at the fence which thankfully contained him.  The pup had only one ambition,  I predicted that in time someone would be badly injured and she seemed shocked.  I understand that she'd paid £850 for the pup at 8 weeks.  Quite what's become of him I dread to think.

It's with regret,  but I truly believe that clear and unequivocal legislation is the only answer and hopefully,  those who import these breeds will have entry stopped at the points of entry.

Alec.


----------



## Dobiegirl (15 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Considering those breeds of dog which for generations have been bred and kept for their guarding abilities,  and/or their leanings towards violence,  dogs which are all so often beyond the capabilities of the average pet home,  I do wonder if the Dangerous Dog's Act shouldn't be expanded and to include those breeds which are now being imported,  often to cross-breed and which are all so often little more than time-bombs.  I'm tempted to think that as there's little use for them,  beyond pet ownership,  there should either be a clear cut ban or,  as in the case of exotic animals,  the owners should be individually licensed and without clear evidence that the owner has experience of such dogs,  and the facilities to contain them,  a licence should be refused.  We can no longer keep lions in our back garden without authority,  so we seem to be approaching the need for ever more legislation.

Whilst I'm firmly of the belief that the inexperienced take on these rather exotic creatures for reasons beyond the comprehension of most,  the blanket ban on ALL dogs with a tendency through their lineage towards aggression,  the risk is that swept up in to the heap will be GSDs,  Rottweilers and the Doberman.  These three breeds specifically will have the odd dog which is a throwback,  but to lump them all in to the same demonised group would be wrong,  clearly.

'Education' is pointless because those who see the cute bundle of appealing fluff at 8 weeks fail to understand that without considerable care and attention to detail,  they will end up with a dangerous liability.  

The DG has a friend who's a health professional and she's animal and pet mad.  She acquired 3 lambs and one Sunday morning we had an urgent 'phone call asking for help as 2 of them were fly-struck.  I went over and they were in a rather poor state.  I treated them,  cleaned them up and applied cooling and antibiotic treatments.  We looked around the garden and there were sheds and cages everywhere,  chickens,  pheasants,  an aviary full of small birds,  guinea-pigs,  rabbits and ferrets (separated).  When we'd done the lady asked me if I'd like to see her dog.  It was a 9 month old crossbred Mastiff of some sort.  I enquired and she did tell me but I've forgotten its precise parentage but she mentioned Neapolitan I think,  though they were of imported origin.  Thankfully between this pup and I there was a fairly stout picket fence.  The pup walked out,  I ignored him and he launched himself at the fence which thankfully contained him.  The pup had only one ambition,  I predicted that in time someone would be badly injured and she seemed shocked.  I understand that she'd paid £850 for the pup at 8 weeks.  Quite what's become of him I dread to think.

It's with regret,  but I truly believe that clear and unequivocal legislation is the only answer and hopefully,  those who import these breeds will have entry stopped at the points of entry.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The DDA is a farce, it hasnt prevented any dog attacks and many notable bodies have come out publicly and said its not fit for purpose.

Any dog in the wrong hands is a menace be that a  JR or a Bull Mastiff, the only difference is the extent of the wound given the difference in size between the 2 breeds and the bite force.

Deed not breed is the slogan of the anti DDA law and its true, the trouble with this law is it addresses the wrong end of the lead.

We have seen how a lovable breed like the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been badly used by louts and is not a family dog anymore according to the press who have jumped on anything when the SBT has been mentioned.

The dog you mentioned Alex most probably would have been a lovely dog in the right hands and in fact I know a couple and they are soft as butter, this lady who owned this dog doesnt seem like a good owner to me either but you cant blame the dog for that.



.


----------



## Clodagh (15 September 2017)

I agree with Alec here, a dog like the Italian Mastiff has been bred to be a guard dog, one generation of cuddles is not going to fix that. Labradors carry sticks, terriers dig holes, greyhounds run after moving things. Dogs that are bred to be intimidating/dangerous are going to carry on being just that. A labrador may bite you but it doesn't have the jaw strength or the bite mentality to result in you losing a limb.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (15 September 2017)

Thought dangerous/beware of dog signs were an admission of guilt because the owner knows the dog is likely to attack? She needs a double gate entrance, full height, locks and codes if need be so no-one can access and a drop box for parcels.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (15 September 2017)

Clodagh said:



			I agree with Alec here, a dog like the Italian Mastiff has been bred to be a guard dog, one generation of cuddles is not going to fix that. Labradors carry sticks, terriers dig holes, greyhounds run after moving things. Dogs that are bred to be intimidating/dangerous are going to carry on being just that. A labrador may bite you but it doesn't have the jaw strength or the bite mentality to result in you losing a limb.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that Labs carry sticks, they also have jaws that are strong enough to pierce full tins of dog food - I know because I've seen them do it!  They have also thought that they should guard their family.
We have Rottweilers now and tbh they are just as soft as any of the many Labs that we used to have but they look intimidating when they are standing behind our locked gate, barking.  That doesn't mean that they would attack any-one who they thought was an intruder but I can't absolutely guarantee that they wouldn't, which is why they are behind the locked gate unless they are on their leads.  They are extremely well-socialised and love meeting new people when they are out and about but it isn't every-one who wants to meet a loose Rottweiler when they are walking, with or without a dog.  

I am afraid that I am of the opinion that there are dangerous owners, rather than dangerous dogs.  It is downright irresponsible to keep a dog, of any breed, which can attack a visitor to the home,  a bite from a JRT can be quite nasty.  If the owner in the OP can make modifications to how they keep the dog now, they could have done that before.  Although I wouldn't want to have a dog constantly muzzled.  Surely it is possible to fence the dog away from the front door access.


----------



## Clodagh (15 September 2017)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I agree that Labs carry sticks, they also have jaws that are strong enough to pierce full tins of dog food - I know because I've seen them do it!  They have also thought that they should guard their family..
		
Click to expand...

But only a deranged lab would want to hold on and rag a person, using the attack biting mentality of a 'bull' type breed. I don't think dobes and rotties have been bred to the hang on and shake type bite? I think that is what makes mastiffs, American bulldogs, pit bulls and even SBTs more dangerous. I entirely agree that many of them are well socialised and lovely dogs but if any dog is going to bite you, it would be preferable not to be a type like that.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (15 September 2017)

Clodagh said:



			But only a deranged lab would want to hold on and rag a person, using the attack biting mentality of a 'bull' type breed. I don't think dobes and rotties have been bred to the hang on and shake type bite? I think that is what makes mastiffs, American bulldogs, pit bulls and even SBTs more dangerous. I entirely agree that many of them are well socialised and lovely dogs but if any dog is going to bite you, it would be preferable not to be a type like that.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, it would.  But NO dog should be in a position where it can bite any-one, except possibly a genuine burglar.  It is the owner's job to make sure that no dog can get to bite a visitor to the property.  A 'keep out' or similar sign, just isn't good enough.  When I was growing up, we had Labs which were kept behind a gate, so that visitors/postmen etc could get to the front door without having to run the gauntlet.  It also made sure that they couldn't go wandering about on their own.  That was in a very different property to the one I live in now.  I simply can't understand why the dog in question wasn't fenced back from the access.

It's not a breed I had heard of before but I googled it and must admit that they look gorgeous.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2017)

Considering some of the breeds which we'd consider to be 'Not for the average person',  and mostly it seems of obscure foreign origin,  I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all and more to the point,  I wonder if they've headed any peer reviewed comments on the subject.  I'd take an even money bet 'Not a hope in hell'!!

Alec.


----------



## Dobiegirl (15 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Considering some of the breeds which we'd consider to be 'Not for the average person',  and mostly it seems of obscure foreign origin,  I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all and more to the point,  I wonder if they've headed any peer reviewed comments on the subject.  I'd take an even money bet 'Not a hope in hell'!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

They are a dog registry nothing else, if they  had the welfare of dogs at heart they would refuse to register dogs from puppy farms


----------



## Alec Swan (15 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			&#8230;. ,  I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all&#8230;.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




Dobiegirl said:



			They are a dog registry nothing else, &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Reading of their level of self promotion,  we might believe that the KC are the guardians of all aspects of our canine world.  It's been time for change for many years,  but just as the rspca,  when they self appoint and with no apparent need to explain themselves,  so they live in an ethereal world of make believe.  Mostly,  I don't bother my self with either any longer.

Alec.


----------



## Fellewell (16 September 2017)

I would think legal representation would be essential here since any number of things could be claimed for including loss of earnings. A few years ago a kennel worker lost her arm and ended up in intensive care after a bite from a Rottweiler. I would say these two breeds are comparable in size and strength so it has more to do with owner responsibility than size/origin of dog.


----------



## Moobli (16 September 2017)

gunnergundog said:



			Alec....whether you like it or not everyone is entitled to legal representation.  Some areas of the law are so niche that they attract very few specialists; it is such individuals, rather than the general practitioner, who are best placed to advise as to what is likely to happen in court which is the information that the OP requested.

You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely.  Whether the dog is given a destruction order or not, the owners are entitled to the best advice from the most experienced people.  

In this situation, I would also most likely have the dog put to sleep if it were mine, but that wouldn't stop me from seeking expert legal advice.


----------



## Moobli (16 September 2017)

Deed not breed is absolutely right imo.  The Law needs to tackle the other end of the lead, ie the owner and most fatal dogs attacks seem to follow the same or similar pattern of young male owner, dog having been bought as a statement or to intimidate, dog not receiving mental stimulation or physical exercise, or having been bred and encouraged to have vicious tendencies.  Having said that, I do think there are certain breeds (such as the Caucasian Ovcharka in another thread) that really have no place in urban Britain but if the owners are responsible and ensure their dog's requirements are met and are not allowed to become a problem to anyone else, then who am I to complain.

I think some sort of licence for the larger, more powerful breeds would not be an entirely bad idea - but it would need to be rigorously enforced and with stiff penalties for those who flouted the law.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (16 September 2017)

Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.


----------



## CorvusCorax (16 September 2017)

An Italian Mastiff is a Cane Corso is it not. Am seeing a few cropped and docked imports locally coming in.


----------



## aztec (16 September 2017)

cinnamontoast said:



			Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?


----------



## Leo Walker (16 September 2017)

aztec said:



			Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?
		
Click to expand...

The same people that gave staffies a bad name. That was pretty obvious from the comment surely?


----------



## aztec (16 September 2017)

Leo Walker said:



			The same people that gave staffies a bad name. That was pretty obvious from the comment surely?
		
Click to expand...

If it was obvious I wouldn't have asked! I didn't realise that Staffies had a bad name... outside the like of the Sun, Mirror, Mail etc who seem to show a picture of a Staffie whenever they report a dog attack.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 September 2017)

cinnamontoast said:



			Seems that mastiff Ypres are the new staffie. I've seen a huge increase in them over the past few years and fewer staffies. Same type of owner, different breed of dog.
		
Click to expand...




aztec said:



			Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I shouldn't reply on behalf of Ct,  I'm old enough to remember when GSDs were de rigueur for those in need of a status symbol,  then the Dobermann took over to be followed by the Rottweiler.  These breeds have now lost popularity with those who were seeking adornments and as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier seems to be losing appeal,  so the import of perhaps the most dangerous dogs of all are gaining momentum in popularity and often amongst those who are least qualified to deal with or train them.

To answer your question,  those who are over-dogged and choose a breed which their mate's just bought,  would be the answer that I'd apply and had you asked the question of me!  

Alec.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (16 September 2017)

CorvusCorax said:



			An Italian Mastiff is a Cane Corso is it not. Am seeing a few cropped and docked imports locally coming in.
		
Click to expand...

while there are of course cropped and docked imports, there are also pups being docked and cropped in the UK. I am not the only one on this forum to report them.


----------



## aztec (16 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Whilst I shouldn't reply on behalf of Ct,  I'm old enough to remember when GSDs were de rigueur for those in need of a status symbol,  then the Dobermann took over to be followed by the Rottweiler.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, I can remember that. In fact I believe that the term "devil dog" was first used by the media when referring to Rotties in the 80's early 90's.



Alec Swan said:



			so the import of perhaps the most dangerous dogs of all are gaining momentum in popularity and often amongst those who are least qualified to deal with or train them.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, most Cane Corsos aren't imported, they have been bred in this country for years. When it comes to whose qualified to deal with or train them... who is that? Owning a GSD, Dobermann, Rottie (or any dog in fact) without any idea of dog behaviour/training is asking for just as much trouble isn't it?


----------



## CorvusCorax (16 September 2017)

As a side issue, I think there's a train of thought that it doesn't matter what breed of dog or what lines or genetics are behind a dog, if you train it the right way it will make a nice family pet and always be one step away from falling asleep.

I still see sketchy examples of all the breeds mentioned above, by sketchy I mean I don't want to go anywhere near them because of the way I see them react to fairly low level stimulus. Socialisation is important but you can't take out what is in the dog by nature.
And often they are in the hands of pet owners who either haven't done any research or have been blinded by commercial advertising of flashy European lines and are trying to fit an animal with high drives and very often a low nerve threshold into a low energy pet home.
And wonder why their square peg won't fit into a round hole.

In the past the public and the pet owner were unable to access dogs like this. Now anyone can buy anything.
There are scores of breeds which fit into sedentary lifestyles but people seem to want the dogs that don't and wonder why there's a problem.


----------



## Clodagh (16 September 2017)

CorvusCorax said:



			As a side issue, I think there's a train of thought that it doesn't matter what breed of dog or what lines or genetics are behind a dog, if you train it the right way it will make a nice family pet and always be one step away from falling asleep.

I still see sketchy examples of all the breeds mentioned above, by sketchy I mean I don't want to go anywhere near them because of the way I see them react to fairly low level stimulus. Socialisation is important but you can't take out what is in the dog by nature.
And often they are in the hands of pet owners who either haven't done any research or have been blinded by commercial advertising of flashy European lines and are trying to fit an animal with high drives and very often a low nerve threshold into a low energy pet home.
And wonder why their square peg won't fit into a round hole.

In the past the public and the pet owner were unable to access dogs like this. Now anyone can buy anything.
There are scores of breeds which fit into sedentary lifestyles but people seem to want the dogs that don't and wonder why there's a problem.
		
Click to expand...

So very true. A friend has an American Bulldog. She rehomed him from another person who couldn't cope. All his siblings have been PTS for aggression, every single one except him. He is a lamb, but frined who rehomed him worked incredibly hard to get there. She did say 'You wouldn't want to break into the house' but that is fair enough.


----------



## CorvusCorax (16 September 2017)

Also in today's modern world you're not likely to be able to keep a pet or companion dog in a sterile environment without contact with delivery people, visitors, friends, neighbours, annoying kids (I jest) and it's not fair to expect a dog with an innate guarding instinct to be able to discriminate between someone intending to do harm or someone harmlessly jogging past.
I keep my dog in a large pen in the daytime, not sure how it's a welfare issue when he is safe from harm and has more floorspace than I have in my bedroom.
He also goes to lots of places and sees lots of different things and gets lots of exercise. If all a dog does is patrol it's own perimeter, his world gets very small and it's no wonder if he believes that anyone coming into the property is a threat (that's conjecture on behalf of the OP, but I see it a lot).


----------



## Cinnamontoast (16 September 2017)

aztec said:



			Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly what Leo said. There's a particularly charming young man up the road from me who used to have his staffie hanging off tree branches. That type, the ones the Mail always bangs on about. It's been remarkable watching the evolution of breed type round here. We tend to walk the youngsters in the same two places, so we've seen the same people over a number of years. This does not mean, of course, that all mastiff owners are like this. It just appears that one particular type of owner has adopted the mastiff as their breed of choice.

I notice an increase in Akitas locally: it's the one breed that worries me. There's a 'puppy' locally. The owner is desperately trying to socialise her, but every other owner walks the other way, me included. I don't want Zak tangling with something three times his size.


----------



## CorvusCorax (16 September 2017)

It is a regional thing I think. All the staffies around here are delightful, well behaved and generally owned by older people.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (16 September 2017)

aztec said:



			Hmmm, what does "same type of owner" mean exactly?
		
Click to expand...

Some round here, too, CC. On my morning commute, I see a very tall older gentleman walking his ancient little black staff. I used to love bumping into the little staffie tornado in the woods, he was a scream. I'd say it's maybe a town thing, regardless of region. Dunno, maybe we should do a survey thread! 

 I'm of the no bad dog camp, it's definitely the owner in the majority of cases, either through lack of socialisation (in my case) or lack of care/training/wrong breed choice, although I'm sure that sometimes the dog is wired wrong or has evolved into a guarding type over many generations. 

For all his issues, Zak has taught us a hell of a lot.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2017)

aztec said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. . When it comes to whose qualified to deal with or train them... who is that? &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

A very good question.  Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns?  As Clodagh has sited,  and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions,  what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase?  Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion?  Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)?  Of course they don't and the reason why?  The bloody things are mostly un-trainable,  and the reason for that?  Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague,  presumably in the belief that they know best.  Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread.  QED and it's undeniable.  Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers,  is a mystery and sadly,  the only answer I believe,  is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement &#8212; Blame the Deed not the Breed.  That works in part when we have,  say and as I once did,  the Labrador Retriever.  There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him.  He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone.  I saw no evidence of aggression,  and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour,  we started to make progress.  Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog.  One day I was walking to my house with him at heel,  the postman turned up,  went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod,  he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything.  It was a serious attack,  it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off.  THAT was a case where we can look to the deed,  rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive.  When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect,  then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply,  utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog,  the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp.  I've had a good few over the years,  some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched,  carefully.  As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe,  and again,  it's what they are,  in short it's the breed.  Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed.  Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up?  I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.


----------



## KittenInTheTree (17 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			A very good question.  Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns?  As Clodagh has sited,  and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions,  what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase?  Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion?  Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)?  Of course they don't and the reason why?  The bloody things are mostly un-trainable,  and the reason for that?  Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague,  presumably in the belief that they know best.  Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread.  QED and it's undeniable.  Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers,  is a mystery and sadly,  the only answer I believe,  is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement &#8212; Blame the Deed not the Breed.  That works in part when we have,  say and as I once did,  the Labrador Retriever.  There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him.  He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone.  I saw no evidence of aggression,  and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour,  we started to make progress.  Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog.  One day I was walking to my house with him at heel,  the postman turned up,  went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod,  he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything.  It was a serious attack,  it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off.  THAT was a case where we can look to the deed,  rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive.  When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect,  then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply,  utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog,  the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp.  I've had a good few over the years,  some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched,  carefully.  As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe,  and again,  it's what they are,  in short it's the breed.  Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed.  Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up?  I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Based on a number of people's experiences including mine, I would trust an unknown collie over an unknown Labrador every single time. Random fact that may or may not interest anyone: the Labrador and the mastiffs of today are descended from the same ancient breed of dog - a household guardian, whose job was to deal with the intruder quietly and efficiently. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (17 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			A very good question.  Coupled to that we could also ask how many of the qualified and competent dog trainers either here or on the Continent would even attempt to desensitise a dog from following it's natural and intentionally bred-in behaviour patterns?  As Clodagh has sited,  and take for instance the Greyhound or perhaps the Foxhound which she mentions,  what would be the success rate I wonder of those who attempted to remove from these dogs the WISH to chase?  Would those trainers who train dogs for the sport disciplines even consider applying their talents to the dogs under discussion?  Do those trainers who train dogs for the man-work disciplines give any thought to taking on those breeds other than the GSDs (mostly)?  Of course they don't and the reason why?  The bloody things are mostly un-trainable,  and the reason for that?  Discipline and control have not been instilled for the generations that such dogs have been bred.

THEN we have those who take on the breeds that the professional trainers avoid like the plague,  presumably in the belief that they know best.  Invariably they don't and the predictable results are at the head of this thread.  QED and it's undeniable.  Why oh why those with little or no experience want the breeds of dogs which are avoided by the best of trainers,  is a mystery and sadly,  the only answer I believe,  is legislation.

Next to the often trotted out and the all so often misused statement &#8212; Blame the Deed not the Breed.  That works in part when we have,  say and as I once did,  the Labrador Retriever.  There's no point in relaying the full story but I once had a Labrador come in for training at 14 months of age and virtually nothing had been done with him.  He was big and bolshy and I was told that he'd also bitten someone.  I saw no evidence of aggression,  and once he started to understand that I wouldn't put up with his childish and loopy behaviour,  we started to make progress.  Once we started serious retrieving work he started to really come in to his own and I believed that I had a possible Trial dog.  One day I was walking to my house with him at heel,  the postman turned up,  went to hand me my post and the dog launched himself at the poor sod,  he took hold of the guy's uniform at his shoulder and pulled him to the ground before I could do anything.  It was a serious attack,  it came with no warning and I had to choke the dog off.  THAT was a case where we can look to the deed,  rather than the breed as the LR isn't generally known for being aggressive.  When a dog is bred for the sole purpose of it's guarding capabilities which will employ an aggressive aspect,  then to claim that the Breed isn't a factor is quite simply,  utter nonsense.

Then perhaps we have a breed of dog,  the Collie and here we have to consider that there are those which can be a bit sharp.  I've had a good few over the years,  some as soft as soft whilst others needed to be watched,  carefully.  As a breed Collies can sometimes be unsafe,  and again,  it's what they are,  in short it's the breed.  Laying a judgement out by blaming the 'Deed' makes for no sense when we consider the possible and known tendencies of the breed.  Would anyone approach a collie which was tied up?  I certainly wouldn't unless it and I knew each other.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

So Alec, if an untrained BC got into a field full of sheep and caused injury, is that the fault of the dog, because it is bred to move sheep around, or the fault of the owner who allowed the dog to get in with the sheep?
If you take on ownership of a dog, of any breed, it is the *owner* who has to take responsibility for it.  Any dog can bite, given what it sees as provocation.  The dog in OP should NOT have been able to get near to the delivery man.  The owner was irresponsible, which is not the dog's fault.  I can see no reason why a responsible owner should not have any breed of dog that they choose.  An irresponsible owner should not have a dog of any breed, IMO.


----------



## Clodagh (17 September 2017)

But you don't hear of many people being killed by collies or labradors, or losing limbs. I am sure plenty get bitten but they are not bred to 'hang on at all costs'. Think how many people have died in the last 12 months in the UK from dog attacks, are there any that weren't staffies, American Bulldogs or similar 'bull' breeds? (There is bound to have been someone killed by a poodle, now I said that).


----------



## aztec (17 September 2017)

the only answer I believe, is legislation
		
Click to expand...

Legislation against what, who? The original 1991 DDA used half cocked, knee jerk, ill thought out legislation to achieve absolutely nothing because it targeted the wrong thing, PBTs & three breeds hardly anyone had ever heard of.
The revision in 1997 made things worse.
It's only the most recent changes (2014) that have taken a step in the right direction, holding the owner responsible for their dogs, of any breed, if they are considered dangerously out of control. Surely that's the way it should be? It should also be publicised more, everyone knows the consequences of drink driving but how many dog owners know about the 2014 DDA amendments & how it affects them as owners? I'll bet it's a small percentage. 

I've owned Mastiffs for over 30 years, not one has bitten or even come close! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

Banning breeds does nothing to address the problem of muppet owners, they will just shift their attention to the next breed on the list (Akitas have been mentioned on this thread) until that breed is banned & so on. What we'll be left with is owning nothing bigger than a hamster... if we're lucky!


----------



## Clodagh (17 September 2017)

I think licensing should be revisited. People who want 'dangerous' dogs could be assessed for suitablility. A cane corso could potentially be as dangerous as a shotgun, so why dshouldn't the owners have to go through assessments like for a shotgun certificate? It could be self funding and unlicensed dogs should be seized and PTS in 7 days.


----------



## Goldenstar (17 September 2017)

KittenInTheTree said:



			Based on a number of people's experiences including mine, I would trust an unknown collie over an unknown Labrador every single time. Random fact that may or may not interest anyone: the Labrador and the mastiffs of today are descended from the same ancient breed of dog - a household guardian, whose job was to deal with the intruder quietly and efficiently. Make of that what you will.
		
Click to expand...

Having only ever been bitten by a border collie I would choose a Labrador the evil thing bit my knee as I walked minding my own buisiness the owner never even stopped .


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2017)

Pearlsasinger said:



			So Alec, &#8230;&#8230;.. .  I can see no reason why a responsible owner should not have any breed of dog that they choose.  An irresponsible owner should not have a dog of any breed, IMO.
		
Click to expand...

So who would you consider and how would you adjudge those who you consider to be 'responsible'?

Sadly,  the Law needs to consider the lowest denominator which is why the only persons who can keep a lion (or any other 'exotic' animal) in captivity is someone who can demonstrate clearly,  that they are fit to do so.  I see myself as responsible and experienced (certainly when it comes to aggressive dogs) and I wouldn't want an animal which had the potential of putting others at risk.  Those who buy such dogs all so often haven't a clue what they're doing with them and though unfortunate,  legislation needs to be in place which limits ownership to those who can clearly demonstrate that they have the facilities,  the experience and perhaps even a good enough reason.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 September 2017)

aztec said:



			.. ! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

.. !
		
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure what the 'vast minority' means,  but to answer your question as to why and considering your question,  for the very same reasons that we have regulations and restrictions which control the ownership of firearms.  I don't believe that we've had one incidence of a legally held firearm being used in a crime for many years now which proves the effectiveness of legislation.

I agree with you that the DDA is a joke and a total waste of time .. as it stands.

Alec.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (17 September 2017)

Clodagh said:



			But you don't hear of many people being killed by collies or labradors, or losing limbs. I am sure plenty get bitten but they are not bred to 'hang on at all costs'. Think how many people have died in the last 12 months in the UK from dog attacks, are there any that weren't staffies, American Bulldogs or similar 'bull' breeds? (There is bound to have been someone killed by a poodle, now I said that).
		
Click to expand...

I think a child was killed by a Mal not too long ago. I think any dog could be capable. 

The worst two I've ever known for attacking other dogs were a massive show type lab and another springer. It was probably partly my dog being very submissive, a total victim, his brother was never even looked at. Fortunately, I've never had a dog which was unsafe with people, although we had a few warning air snaps from one, easily overcome and he hasn't done it since he was a pup.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (17 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			So who would you consider and how would you adjudge those who you consider to be 'responsible'?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

A responsible owner is one who ensures that their dog can/will do no harm to any person anywhere.  So my Rottweilers do not walk off their leads (they play in the enclosed yard)and are kept away from the door which visitors can access by a locked gate.  They have been extremely well socialised from the day they were allowed to go out after vaccs.



aztec said:



			Legislation against what, who? The original 1991 DDA used half cocked, knee jerk, ill thought out legislation to achieve absolutely nothing because it targeted the wrong thing, PBTs & three breeds hardly anyone had ever heard of.
The revision in 1997 made things worse.
It's only the most recent changes (2014) that have taken a step in the right direction, holding the owner responsible for their dogs, of any breed, if they are considered dangerously out of control. Surely that's the way it should be? It should also be publicised more, everyone knows the consequences of drink driving but how many dog owners know about the 2014 DDA amendments & how it affects them as owners? I'll bet it's a small percentage. 

I've owned Mastiffs for over 30 years, not one has bitten or even come close! Why should I, & many others like me, have to suffer for the actions of a vast minority?

Banning breeds does nothing to address the problem of muppet owners, they will just shift their attention to the next breed on the list (Akitas have been mentioned on this thread) until that breed is banned & so on. What we'll be left with is owning nothing bigger than a hamster... if we're lucky!
		
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly.  The DDA should be publicised widely and the penalties for allowing a dog to behave dangerously should be as serious as possible.


----------



## tim_ (18 September 2017)

Thanks for all your responses (especially Alec), we're considering introducing a dog into the family but with two young children (5yo) what, how and when is becoming a long discussion.


----------



## Elsbells (18 September 2017)

Some years ago I took in my sister's beautiful Doberman bitch who had a history of biting. She was a pretty dobe, really sweet and gentle with her family but would just attack a stranger. I thought as I'm "good" with animals that I could sort her out but ultimately we took 2 steps forward and 1 back constantly. The last straw was when she bit a trainer friend of mine who bred and handle Dobes as her business, I knew then as I drove away that I couldn't take her home again and without discussion I took straight to my vets and sat with her as 3 vets put her to sleep.
Ultimately, although now I believe that her problem was an undiagnosed congenital and progressive blindness which wasnt her fault, my responsibility was to the people she would hurt in the future and that by putting her to sleep this was the only course if action afforded to me, to keep everyone safe and her safe too because obviously she was terrified when she attacked.
I would not have a loaded gun in the house, neither an attack dog which is what they are. It broke my heart but its a decision I will stand by and one IMO that your friend needs to make.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (18 September 2017)

KittenInTheTree said:



			Based on a number of people's experiences including mine, I would trust an unknown collie over an unknown Labrador every single time.
		
Click to expand...

christ, I wouldnt-and I've met some very thuggy labs. I've been bitten by allsorts but mainly Westies being an ex VN-and alot of collies. I owned a collie myself that couldnt be trusted around anyone but me and my ex SiL.  

still rather be bitten by a westie or even a collie than a cane corso weirdly. having also been attacked on the street by an EBT, so its not always about sheer size.


----------



## PucciNPoni (18 September 2017)

MotherOfChickens said:



			christ, I wouldnt-and I've met some very thuggy labs. I've been bitten by allsorts but mainly Westies being an ex VN-and alot of collies. I owned a collie myself that couldnt be trusted around anyone but me and my ex SiL.  

still rather be bitten by a westie or even a collie than a cane corso weirdly. having also been attacked on the street by an EBT, so its not always about sheer size.
		
Click to expand...

It's funny because we will all have different opinions based on our individual experiences.  The vets/nurses I work with as well as most groomers I know loathe working on westies because they're wee toe rags.  However I adore them, I have rarely been threatened by a westie.  But I get the shivers when I get a collie on my table that gives me "the eye".  Have had a few go for me over seemingly small infractions (pulling a wee knot out of their skirt is a big no no apparently).  THe worst bite I've ever had in my professional career was from a shih Tzu who really meant it.  But I do detest grooming Labs simply because they tend to act thick about manners, throw themselves about for no real reason.  Have never been threatened or found any that have seen any real behaviour issues that weren't of the "throw themselves at you for no real reason" variety.  Usually these ones were the type that come in with owners who think control is about putting them in a harness and a chain lead.


----------



## Moobli (18 September 2017)

I have never been bitten (yet!) but the only dog I have ever felt threatened by was a Rottie.  Everyone's experiences will be different.  Having owned and lived with working collies for many years I think I can read them quite well - but would probably trust an unknown lab over an unknown collie simply because collies are so much more reactive and sensitive than labs (in general).


----------



## conniegirl (18 September 2017)

We've had dogs all my life, normaly last chance saloon rescues, they either came right with us or were to be PTS. We've only failed once and that was with a Yorkie who was so terrified of everything she litteraly wet herself at the slightest noise. If your hands went anywhere near her or her corner then you were liable to lose a finger
We just could not get her interacting with anything or anyone, absolutely heart breaking watching her sit in a corner and shake, or huddle in the corner and pee herself if you had a conversation, god only knows what had been done to her.

I've only felt threatened a few times with dogs, one was a very strange spaniel that i'm now sure had spaniel rage syndrome, got a nasty bite to the leg from that and still have scars from it. Another was an alaskan malamute, it was a very dominant, very agressive dog and had no respect for anyone other that its male owner, the owners wife was utterly terrified of it, i have to say I was always very wary round it as it seemed one breath away from attacking everyone around it. third one is a local GSD who when walked is always on the lead but even on the lead (big burly guy on the other end) lunges, barks and growls at anyone within about 50ft.

I've been bitten (not nipped, had plenty of nips) by 2 dogs, the spaniel mentioned above and a golden retriever, though the goldie i would quite happily say was not a nasty bite and was under extenuating circumstances as the poor dog had been run over and in lifting it into my car to take it to the vet I obviously prodded, or grabbed somewhere on him that was very very sore (possibly his broken hip at the time), got a bite for my troubles but extenuating circumstances IMO and TBH the bite wound from it was not too bad at all, the dog has never even threatened to bite or nip in the 10 years since then (and he has been pretty much mauled by children).


----------



## Alec Swan (18 September 2017)

conniegirl,  you've been through the mill it seems,  but that's how we gain experience,  even if it does hurt a bit!  Considering your little Yorkie,  such dread and fear of the world and a refusal to in any way interact is all so often a case of genetics I feel,  rather than ill treatment.  I'd bet that you've had dogs which have been poorly treated but with care and a confident approach,  they do seem to come round,  don't they?  It never fails to surprise me just how forgiving dogs are,  generally!

It's also true that some dogs and often for no apparent reason will react to a situation,  it becomes embedded in their make-up and there's neither rhyme nor reason to their behaviour.  I had a rescue collie bitch once,  she was shy and sharp but she started to enjoy her work with sheep.  I walked on eggshells with her and she was starting to make real progress,  grow in confidence and I had high hopes for her.  Then I introduced the stop-whistle to her and for reasons that I never understood,  as soon as I blew the whistle,  she'd fold up and refuse to have anything to do with sheep.  She was,  as I've said,  sharp and would go for anyone who approached me.  She wasn't safe with strangers and she loathed small children.  Eventually I sent her off to heaven.  I often think of Millie and wondered if I could have got round her problem.  With me,  she was a loving little thing.

Alec.


----------



## conniegirl (18 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			conniegirl,  you've been through the mill it seems,  but that's how we gain experience,  even if it does hurt a bit!  Considering your little Yorkie,  such dread and fear of the world and a refusal to in any way interact is all so often a case of genetics I feel,  rather than ill treatment.  I'd bet that you've had dogs which have been poorly treated but with care and a confident approach,  they do seem to come round,  don't they?  It never fails to surprise me just how forgiving dogs are,  generally!

It's also true that some dogs and often for no apparent reason will react to a situation,  it becomes embedded in their make-up and there's neither rhyme nor reason to their behaviour.  I had a rescue collie bitch once,  she was shy and sharp but she started to enjoy her work with sheep.  I walked on eggshells with her and she was starting to make real progress,  grow in confidence and I had high hopes for her.  Then I introduced the stop-whistle to her and for reasons that I never understood,  as soon as I blew the whistle,  she'd fold up and refuse to have anything to do with sheep.  She was,  as I've said,  sharp and would go for anyone who approached me.  She wasn't safe with strangers and she loathed small children.  Eventually I sent her off to heaven.  I often think of Millie and wondered if I could have got round her problem.  With me,  she was a loving little thing.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Calm quiet consistency seems to bring most of them right, that and ignoring unwanted behaviors (ones that are not dangerous) and rewarding wanted ones.
Over the last 20 years weve probably fostered around 40 dogs and kept around 10 of those as our pets.
As i said only ever failed with one.

The goldie that bit me is still with us, he is 17 years old now! Never again threatened to bite and an absolute angel with small children prodding and poking him, he just lies down, tucks his paws underneath him and lets them get on with it.

We were one of the last chance fosterers for a few breed rescues, taking the very difficult dogs. Yet the RSPCA doesnt think we are suitable for one of thier dogs??
We only stopped because mum is now retired and wants to travel the world.
We now have 3 dogs and as they pass they wont be replaced.
1 aincient goldie, 1 younger goldie who took to my dad so strongly that if separated from him for 24 hrs has to be coaxed into eating and a beagle who now he gets an appropriate level of exercise and discipline is an utter sweetheart but if he doesnt ger his walks is destructive


----------



## Kaylum (19 September 2017)

Someone at work their friend is going through this now.  Dog bit postman, postman put a claim in, the dog owner didn't have insurance, the claim has now gone to court.  If you don't defend the claimant automatically wins.  They put in a defence so awaiting the outcome.


----------



## aztec (19 September 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm not too sure what the 'vast minority' means,
		
Click to expand...

 Me either LOL, substitute small or tiny


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (19 September 2017)

nikkianddave said:



			Hello, just looking for some advice please for a friend

her dog has bitten a delivery man, quite badly on his arm and you could actually see his bone

the dog is an Italian mastiff.

We know the law has changed on dangerous dogs on your own private property which is why we are asking for advice

the has signs everywhere saying do not enter, the delivery man (which we know are protected even more so entering private property) entered the property and the dog attacked him

the owner took the man to hospital, and called his workplace numerous times to check on him

she has now put preventative measures in place, i.e the dog is muzzled when outside, even in her private property and she has ordered kennels for him

the police came out to see her and took a statement, and as far as she was lead to believe it had been recorded and no further action was being taken

today she has received a letter from the court, being charged with "owner/person in charge of dog dangerously out of control causing injury"

it is clear that the person the dog attached is pressing charges, or the police if it is out of his control, which is all completely acceptable giving the dog did attack him

We would just like some advise on what may happen in court? could she be fined, or worse? could the dog be seized or would this have been done already if that was going to happen?

the owner is going to the solicitor today to get some legal advice

Please no nasty comments, the dog is a much loved family dog and hasn't bitten anyone before, but he is a protection dog and obviously this is heartbreaking for his owner
		
Click to expand...

Putting a muzzle on it now is like shutting a door after the horse has bolted.     Regardless of if the animal has bitten before or not or however gentle it is, a bite is a bite and to see bone that is serious.   Really if the owner of the house is expecting a parcel  and let's face it now you get told a day and a time slot.  The responsible thing is to chain the dog or put it inside until the delivery is made, yes it is sad for the owner but I am with the delivery man on this and if it were my b/f or husband I too would insist on charges  being brought on.

Not to mention the infection that can be caused by a bite down to the bone. 

 This time a adult but what if a child accidentally kicks a ball over the fence and goes to get it?  Sorry but if you have a dog you are responsible for it at all times and put it in the house if your waiting for a parcel.


----------



## YorksG (19 September 2017)

ILuvCowparsely said:



			This time a adult but what if a child accidentally kicks a ball over the fence and goes to get it?  Sorry but if you have a dog you are responsible for it at all times and put it in the house if your waiting for a parcel.
		
Click to expand...

I do wish that people would teach their children to stay out of other peoples property! We have ensured that no-one can access our yard, where the dogs can play, as we have dog and people proof fencing and a locked gate. We do still however get people, their children and dogs going into our fields, which have no public access. If people were taught, as children, to respect private property, there would be fewer incidents where people get bitten by dogs on their "own territory". In the case of people with legitimate access, then the only answer is to ensure that access can be gained without coming into contact with the dogs.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2017)

We have a secure dog proof garden, and locked and netted 4' high wooden farm entrance gates. The post box and illuminated door bell press are handily positioned just outside the gate, plus a note advising callers to ring the doorbell or sound their horn if they want us. 

There's no need at all for for anyone to come into unsupervised contact with the JRT, who bustles round to woof importantly from his side of the gate if we do get callers. That doesn't stop some folk from reaching right over the gate to try and stroke him, or indeed to climb over the gate to try and get to the front door.

It seems ridiculous to install 6' high gates to protect intruders from coming into contact with a 1' tall dog, but maybe this is the way things are going.


----------



## Amymay (19 September 2017)

Considering that a fully on control dog is facing a death sentence because of one persons stupidity, I would be surprised if the dog isn't ordered to be destroyed.


----------



## Cecile (28 September 2017)

Seems that rules vary depending on where you live

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-41420663


----------



## Alec Swan (28 September 2017)

amymay said:



			Considering that a fully on control dog is facing a death sentence because of one persons stupidity, I would be surprised if the dog isn't ordered to be destroyed.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps sadly for the dog,  it was owned by a person who neglected their duty of responsibility,  so if it's taken from them and destroyed,  then that's how it is.  If a person is found to be drunk and driving a car without having paid road tax and they have no insurance,  the chances are that the car will be taken from them and crushed.  The owner of the dog and the owner of the car,  are in the same boat,  it would seem to me,  both being forced to face their responsibilities.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 October 2017)

Cecile said:



			Seems that rules vary depending on where you live

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-41420663

Click to expand...

The owner of the dog was ordered to pay £1000 in compensation to his victim,  he was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid community work and the dog is to be muzzled when it's in a public place  why wasn't there an order made to destroy the dog?  Perhaps he claimed that he loved it!

Our Courts today,  when deciding to fine those who have broken the Laws consider the ability of those found guilty and it seems that if you claim that you can't pay a fine,  there's little point in considering the matter further.  The husband of his victim quite rightly said that the guilty man got away scot free,  or virtually so.  I wonder if the poor victim will ever receive her compensation  it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't.

There are times when our criminal justice system is a joke.

Alec.


----------



## RunToEarth (2 October 2017)

YorksG said:



			I do wish that people would teach their children to stay out of other peoples property! We have ensured that no-one can access our yard, where the dogs can play, as we have dog and people proof fencing and a locked gate. We do still however get people, their children and dogs going into our fields, which have no public access. If people were taught, as children, to respect private property, there would be fewer incidents where people get bitten by dogs on their "own territory". In the case of people with legitimate access, then the only answer is to ensure that access can be gained without coming into contact with the dogs.
		
Click to expand...

It's the world we live in, you owe a duty of care to everyone on your property, whether they are invited or not.


----------



## ycbm (2 October 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			The owner of the dog was ordered to pay £1000 in compensation to his victim,  he was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid community work and the dog is to be muzzled when it's in a public place &#8212;&#8212; why wasn't there an order made to destroy the dog?
		
Click to expand...


During my time as a magistrate I sat on one case where a dog destruction order was requested. During that trial, a Greater Manchester Police Officer said in evidence 'every dog is allowed one bite'.

The dog in question, an Akita/GSD cross, had previously bitten and the owners tried hard but did not convince us of their ability or willingness to control it in future, so we ordered that it be destroyed.

OP, if the dog is not already in Police custody, and your friend takes every possibly step to ensure that this can never happen again, I doubt a destruction order will even be applied for.

She should expect, quite rightly, to also face a Civil case for much more substantial compensation than the court can order, which her insurers, hopefully,  will handle.


----------

