Dangerous Dog Database

[Millie&MeBC]

Thanks, Maralynn. Yes, it is instinct to go after small animals. Do you think the dog knows that a person's companion cat is any different than other small or feral animals?

Prey drive is stronger in some breeds than others (compare Husky to Bichon Frise), and huskies are definitely one of them that have very high prey drive. It's up to the owner to properly contain/control/train their dogs, it doesn't mean they are "dangerous".

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Not to be disagreeable but I think it absolutely means they are dangerous. Clearly they do have high prey drive or aggression issues as they've killed or attacked another animal and they have an owner who has not adequately controlled them. If it was your cat that was killed, your dog that was attacked or your child that was bitten, you'd probably at a minimum want the owner to be held accountable in ways that would at least reduce the chances that the same would happen to someone else in the future. At least I would.

[MaggieDog]

Yea but 100,000 dollar liability because a dog attacked a dog or killed a cat?? I have no doubt that there should be something in place to keep animals who are known to do such things restrain/confined, but seriously, I think all the rest is a bit over the top. Maggie has killed a rabbit, does this mean she should be confined to my property (an apt), muzzled when outside, and if I had a house, confined to a small pen with 6' tall fences and a cement floor like I know some laws would require? Replace rabbit with cat - why does that change things?

[Guest WoobiesMom]

I can't speak for what was in the minds of the writers of the statute, but it does state "companion animal". If your dog killed a wild rabbit, it's not going to face the same sanctions. If it kills or attacks a companion animal that is on YOUR property, it's not going to face these sanctions. What makes it a problem is when a dog commits these acts off of its property when it is SUPPOSED to be controlled by the owner, on a leash (in my county). If the rabbit was a companion animal on a leash owned by your neighbor, I suppose you'd face those sanctions. The size of the run is up to the owner, it's the security that is the issue, so that no animal or person can wander into the area where the dog is confined. I assume that's an attempt to prevent the "targeting" or enticing the animal to attack by someone with a vendetta.

 

The amount of the homeowners insurance required is probably (just my guess) a response to the number of dogs who have bitten people who were known to have bitten or killed animals in the past and the demonstrated irresponsibility of the owners. It provides a way for the injured party to collect restitution be it a value placed on the killed pet, vet or medical bills for bites and attacks.

[OurBoys]

I can see where something like this could be a problem when/if nosy busybodies are involved or if someone might have a vendetta against someone but I wished we had something like this in our county.

 

Our next door neighbor has a dog aggressive GS. She's never harmed a human but she can not be trusted around other dogs. To my knowledge she has attacked every dog on our street with the exception of Jake. And the guy is so dog-ignorant, every once in awhile, he'll ask us to bring Jake over to play with his GS!! I tell him "No way! Why? I don't want Sada grabbing Jake around the throat!" His response??? "Sada won't hurt Jake. Jake runs faster than Sada. She'll never catch him." The next time he brings it up I'm going to ask him just what is his definition of 'play'????

 

Even after he had to pay $400 for his other next door neighbor's vet bill and paying $1200 in an expensive obedience class, he still doesn't get it. I'm under the impression the other next door neighbor insisted in an obedience class or they would sue. The trainer came out to their house and it was the wife that would go thru the training with Sada. It was the wife that did the 'homework' with her. The whole time he would just sit there and watch. He refuses to fence in his yard. He'll get on his tractor practically every day and go out to 'clean up' the woods around the beaver pond and takes her with him. Sometimes I get the impression he enjoys having the neighborhood bully. Our backyard is fenced in but one day when he came over, instead of coming to the front door, he came to the back door and Sada was with him. He told me it was his wife's fault, she was the one who let Sada in our backyard. I told my DH to hurry up and go over there before I lost my temper....I don't care who let her in, he was standing right there and could have sent her out.

 

I don't think our next door neighbor realizes just how lucky he is. I don't feel anyone around here blames Sada for the way she is. She's a very loving and friendly dog otherwise. Would I get upset if she seriously injured or killed one of ours? Yes but I would get upset with her owner, not her. It's because of people like him, IMO, that laws are needed to force poeple to fence in their yard and not let them deliberately run free.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

If you really think about it, most of the consequence is placed on the owner, which is where it should be. Does the dog know it's wearing an orange collar? No. Lots of dogs are muzzled in public, greyhounds come to mind. The owner has to make sure it's securely confined, which most owners should do, post a sign (so others know there's danger) and maintain a level of insurance that would provide for the injuries the dog may cause. I don't think the consequences are that excessive other than the property insurance. I don't know what that would cost and if it would cover a bite that occurs off of the property. It's unfortunate for the dog to be labeled due to the owner's negligence, but that's the way it goes.

[Millie&MeBC]

I would be absolutely devastated if my cat (as they are family members like my dogs are) was killed by another dog, but

A. I don't let my cats out and subject them to those dangers.

B. A dog does not know the difference between a loved pet and a wild animal and its value to the owners.

If it was off my property or even on I'd be pissed at myself for letting my cat into a dangerous situation without adequate defense (i.e. size compared to predators around here) and sure, I'd be upset with the owner if a dog came over to my property, but if it were my choice I still wouldn't want the dog to have to be under the dangerous dog registry.

Many dogs have high prey drive. Most sight and scent hounds would probably kill a cat if the chance came about, but that doesn't mean they all should be put on that database, in my opinion at least.

Of course dogs should be contained and its not acceptable for a dog to wander onto someone else's property and kill another animal, but that's the owner's fault and mistake, but not, IMO, meaning the dog and owner should be treated with more rigid monitoring than a sex offender. They offer more information and control than the sex offender registry around here.

Not meaning to be argumentative, just expressing my opinion.

[MaggieDog]

I'm still having trouble figuring out why my dog should be on a dangerous dog database if she hurts a cat or dog regardless of circumstance. My girl has super high prey drive and does stalk cats; she's even gotten into fights with other dogs before I knew better than to allow her free rein at the dog park, yet what you're saying is that my dog should be in a database, muzzled, never off lead, and labelled dangerous despite the fact that she is a Delta Society Pet Partner (there goes that job after 4+ years), competes in agility (yes even outside in a ring marked only w/ tape), serves as a demo dog at events, and attends conferences surrounded by other dogs and people w/o so much as a lifted lip. Of course that's assuming that I can afford the liability insurance to even keep her in the home she's known for 7 years....

 

How the HECK does the dangerous dog law that applies to small animals make any sense????

[Olivia]

I agree with Erin.

 

My Carlie dog has very high prey drive and loves nothing better than to chase small furries... bunnies, squirrels, cats, etc. Now if she can catch them she'll do some damage. We have a 6 foot privacy fence around our yard yet the neighbor's cats still come into our yard to poop and lay in the sun. I used to try to run them off before letting the dogs out but quickly tired of that as I don't think it is my responsibility to walk my fenced in acre to take care of someone else's animals. Now I just let the dogs out. The other day one of the cats waited a split second too long to run for the fence and the dogs caught her as she was climbing it, jumped up, grabbed her and pulled her back into our yard. I yelled for them to 'drop it' and 'leave it', which they did and the cat made her escape.

 

Carlie is also a certified therapy dog, agility competitor, sheep dog and obedience dog. Should she be labeled dangerous? She will chase and kill cats if given the chance. Now I go out of my way to make sure she doesn't get that chance but if the neighbor's kid left the gate open...well...

 

I think dangerous dogs should really only apply to people.

 

 

Olivia

[KellyR]

I think we need a dangerous/stupid owners database.

 

That'd solve a lot of issues right there.

[SoloRiver]

Dangerous to animals and dangerous to humans are two totally different things.

 

To a dog, chasing and killing a bunny and chasing and killing a cat are essentially the same thing. How is the dog supposed to know that cats are our "friends" and rabbits are "wild animals?"

 

Existing leash/containment laws were enforced they would cover instances where the animal causes trouble off of the owner's property.

 

The statute as written could absolutely result in a Border Collie puppy chasing a kid on a bike and nipping as "dangerous."

 

You do realize that Woobie could very well end up on a database like this? Let's say you're at Petsmart, and for a split second you're distracted by the cashier, and someone goes to pet him without asking you first and he snaps and grazes the guy's finger enough to leave a little scratch. If the guy decides to go to the emergency room for treatment (and yes, it could happen, trust me) then presto, Woobie is a "dangerous" dog. Do you consider him "dangerous?"

 

It's not always about gross negligence. If it were, I would have no problem with the statute. It's about dogs sometimes being dogs and humans sometimes being fallible. I don't have anything against animal control laws if they are fair, evenly enforceable, and logical. This statute is none of those things, and having the database online is just plain ludicrous.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

I'll respond since you addressed me directly, but I'm not going to champion every "what if" situation. There are special circumstances to every case and that's why a JUDGE decides.

 

When Woobie is out, I am extremely aware. Just as I was with my Airedale who had aggression issues with other male dogs. In 10 years, Rush got out exactly twice and Thank God nothing happened. But if it had, I would realize that it was because of a lapse of control on my part and take my lumps if he hurt a person or a pet. Sh*t, I'd feel pretty awful if he managed to ever catch the millions of squirrels he chased in our back yard and hurt it. As far as Woobie, the one time I've ever had a situation where he could have possibly bit a person was with the little girl and stupid father at the park and if something had happened, I would accept that I had not acted appropriately and a child was injured. It is up to ME to keep people from petting him if he's scared or take responsibility for failing to do so. He is dangerous. All dogs are if you really think about it. They possess the ability to snap for whatever reason and hurt someone or something. What separates them from the ones labeled is the fact that something HAS happened and THE OWNER FAILED. Failed to control, failed to predict, failed to stop the injury/death from happening. A judge has looked at the circumstances and decided that the public needed to be protected.

 

Not necessarily from the dog but from the owner whose judgment/prevention/supervision FAILED. The next thing the dog could view as "prey" when the owner FAILS to properly control the dog is a small child. And all people have the right to walk, bike, stroll, etc. on public roadways w/o being harrassed by a dog.

 

In other news, as I mentioned earlier, enforcement of this statute is highly dependent on the bitee. One of the regular greyhounds from the dog park was attacked by a Borzoi this past week. What first appeared to be a superficial wound ended up much more extensive but the owners exchanged info, the Borzoi's owner agreed to pay the vet bills and as far as I know no one reported the incident to the authorities. The Borzoi was back at the park (with a muzzle) the next day. Will I go into the park if I see them (there's 2 of them) there? Nope. I know my dog is too friendly and apparently this was a problem for this dog and I'm not putting him at risk. But others run the risk of this happening because they don't know about the incident and the owners will probably think the dog is okay after a while and remove the muzzle.

[Catu]

Most of time I regret we do not have a proper animal control and protection law, specially with all the strays wandering everywhere, but when I read of extremes like these, I really prefer not to have such law.