Bandit almost killed

[Journey]

I must have missed the "sue her" comments. I don't remember any "make her pay" sentiments either

 

Post #3, #5, #8, 15 and 16. And then all the "if it had been a kid" comment, I don't see where it has to do with any of this, bad comparison. As you said "sue happy" and responsibility adverse - so isn't the injured dogs owner responsible for putting his dog in that position to begin with? Lance, this is simply a dialogue, not aimed at you at all, just the thread made me think about the other side after what happened to Bandit and the other post that the dog was killed at a DP.

[in2adventure]

I'm so sorry to hear about bandit. I hope he's OK and has a speedy recovery

 

I used to live near the PETA Park and went all the time. I stopped going because it was one of the worst policed facilities in the area. The people were rude, the dogs were mean and ill mannered and the park was always full of pooh . The only cool thing about it was, it sat on the river and has a ramp to the dogs can swim.

 

Good luck on getting compinsated. Like I said, the people aren't any better than the dogs. Hang out at the Chesapeake City dog park. They have park police and the area is sooooo much bigger and you can get away from ugly dogs and people alike.

[juliepoudrier]

As you said "sue happy" and responsibility adverse - so isn't the injured dogs owner responsible for putting his dog in that position to begin with?

If you truly believe this, then I suppose one would never want to leave one's property for fear of being responsible for unprovoked attacks of one's dog or oneself. Yes, there is risk inherent in going to a dog park. There is risk inherent in simply walking down the sidewalk in any city. If the same attack had occurred any place other than a dog park, would you feel differently? I wouldn't. I think we should all be able to expect some reasonable degree of safety when we leave our property, with our without our dogs. This argument sort of reminds of the comments sometimes heard when a person is mugged or raped and the observers note that the victim "asked for it" by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by wearing the wrong clothes, etc., shoving responsibility off on the victim. I am not saying people and dogs are equal, but the argument you are making is analogous to the argument involving people I mention here. And I don't buy it.

 

I personally doubt that the woman who owned the attacking dog has any real legal responsibility--But I don't know enough about the law to say. But I think common decency would dictate that she would want to do something to make up for the fact that her dog damaged another person's dog, no matter where it happened.

 

I know if it had been my dog that attacked someone else's dog--no matter where the location--I would be horrified and would go out of my way to make sure that I made amends the best way I could. I certainly wouldn't take the attitude "Well, it's a risky place, and you knew the potential risk going in, so too bad for you and your dog." Unfortunately, the latter attitude seems all too prevalent in modern society.

 

I think this comment

 

I've never set foot in a dog park, and am becoming increasingly leery of even taking Scooter out for walks. Too many unpleasant encounters recently with antisocial dogs and clueless owners.

 

is a natural outgrowth of the attitude I mention above. And I think it's a crying shame that responsible, decent people feel they can't safely take their dogs *anywhere* thanks to the yahoos of this world.

 

J.

[Shetlander]

Post #3, #5, #8, 15 and 16. And then all the "if it had been a kid" comment, I don't see where it has to do with any of this, bad comparison.

 

I still don't see it in 4 of those posts. I saw comments about seeking compensation or try to get compensation, which does not necessarily involve a law suit. In one post, the comment was you "could" sue. That poster also said you could beat off the other dog or kill it if necessary. Could.

 

 

As you said "sue happy" and responsibility adverse - so isn't the injured dogs owner responsible for putting his dog in that position to begin with?

 

Yes, the injured dog's owner pays the price of watching his dog being attacked and injured. It's a terrible price to pay because you thought something was safe. My dog was attacked over 15 years ago and I still remember the surreal experience of rescuing him while a part of me was thinking "I can't believe I'm going to watch him be killed" and "You shouldn't be kicking these dogs. You're going to get bit," then kicking them some more.

 

I don't understand why you would think the person whose dog attacks doesn't bear at least half the responsibility here, if that is what you are saying.

 

Lance, this is simply a dialogue, not aimed at you at all,

 

Yes, sorry, Lance.

[Shetlander]

I personally doubt that the woman who owned the attacking dog has any legal responsibility--don't know enough about the law to say. But I think common decency would dictate that she would want to do something to make up for the fact that her dog damaged another person's dog, no matter where it happened.

 

Sadly, common decency seems to on the path to being as rare as "common" sense.

[Journey]

If you truly believe this, then I suppose one would never want to leave one's property for fear of being responsible for unprovoked attacks of one's dog or oneself. Yes, there is risk inherent in going to a dog park. There is risk inherent in simply walking down the sidewalk in any city. If the same attack had occurred any place other than a dog park, would you feel differently? I wouldn't.

 

No, I am wondering about it based on all the comments here in the not so past. Yes, I think I would feel different if this occurred someplace else (not that I don't feel what happened wasn't horrible!). Going to a dog park you are intentionally placing your dog into a group, pack, of unknown dogs. Anda has raved about the park she goes too, others have have good and bad to say. I2A just said this park was "one of the worst policed" ones, no Lance, I am not pointing at you about this park, just using the example given. Based on what these parks are set up as "dog parks" I think there is more than an inherant risk by using them.

 

I think we should all be able to expect some reasonable degree of safety when we leave our property, with our without our dogs. This argument sort of reminds of the comments sometimes heard when a person is mugged or raped and the observers note that the victim "asked for it" by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by wearing the wrong clothes, etc., shoving responsibility off on the victim. I am not saying people and dogs are equal, but the argument you are making is analogous to the argument involving people I mention here. And I don't buy it.

 

Absolutely. However, wrong place wrong time is an accident, you don't walk into a dog park by accident.

 

But I think common decency would dictate that she would want to do something to make up for the fact that her dog damaged another person's dog, no matter where it happened.

 

And I agree with this comment, it's the ones that "could sue her" etc.. that I don't necessarily agree with w/o all the info.

[BNM1980]

OMG!!! I hope he recovers.

 

I'll also make a confession right here and right now.

 

As part of my survival gear I always cary the most important 4 items. Water, phone/whistle, lighter and knife. Now I have another reason for the knife. I'm not above protecting my dogs with lethal force.

 

On the other side can you find and sue her for the vet bills and such. Also file a complaint. If she's been to the dog park one she's bound to turn up there again.

 

What is the lighter for?

[Pam Wolf]

Pepper spray.

 

When going to the dog park, take some for just such incidents. Some folks say black pepper, I haven't tried. But Pepper spray should work.

 

Thing is, dogs fight (period) I have observed and worked with dog behaviour for over 30 years. Often the one dog that is 'seemingly innocent' is the instigator. Sure, the other dog shouldn't have such a hair trigger, but it happens. The most common cause is ,a particular BC trait, staring!

 

You know this can happen in a dog park, be prepared. Take precautions for future events. Seperating 2 fighting dogs can cause alot of damage to the people involved. If the dogs are properly socialized with other dogs (a case for puppy training and bite inhibition training) there is seldom any signifigant damage. But it is a fact of dogdom, dogs fight. We expect alot of our dogs these days. We keep them socially isolated for the first critical months of their lives then throw them into the world when older often without the proper foundation (not a comment on the OP, but in general).

 

For future info, Pits are sometimes trained to accept hitting as part of their training for fighting-if for no other reason than to test their pain tolerance. Hitting can encourage some dogs to fight harder, not a good idea IMHO

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

When someone's labs got in my fence (pre LGDs) and killed my entire ewe flock, they were legally responsible. I'd think even more so if a dog bites a person, no matter where that bite happens (I mean, dog park or not). Dogs biting dogs - more iffy maybe but if they insist on ignoring the demands of civility - well, there's civil court.

 

One of my neighbors was really decent about the sheep kill. The other one dug his heels in, but a simple break bad lawyer letter took care of it.

[BNM1980]

Yesterday Blake was set on by a large brown dog outside a hardware store, and, like the big softy he is, ran between my legs. The Korean owner (a different dog culture prevails here) watched laughing, as if it were all a big joke. I gave the dog a very swift kick in the ribs and thankfully it yelped pitifully and ran indoors. I honestly thought it was going to attack me after I kicked it. And just for the record, I carry a large box-cutter and I too will not hesitate to slit the throat of any dog that attacks me or my dog or my family.

[CleverColliesDeb.]

I`m terribly saddened to read of Bandit being attacked; here`s wishing a complete and speedy recovery.

 

My three working dogs lead happy, safe and contented lives; except if we`re 'forced' to use a dog park....for, here in Britain, such places seem to be plagued by ineffectual owners with 'issue' laden dogs.

[mbc1963]

I didn't get a "sue-happy" feel from these posts - just the belief that the vet bills should be covered. To me, "sue-happy" people are the ones who go after a gigantic financial reward when they perceive they have been wronged. If Lance, for example, were trying to get $100,000 from this woman because of "pain and suffering" on his part, I'd consider that sue-happy: his bills aren't $100,000, and pain and suffering can't be fixed by financial rewards.

 

The vet and doctor bills, on the other hand, will amount to a very specific dollar amount - somewhere under $2,000, I'd hope! - and there will be receipts and invoices and proof of actual costs. Ethically, I think that the owner of the dog who caused the bills should foot the bills.

 

Having said that, I ended up with about $100 in copays for my recent stitches and meds for a finger-tear caused by a dog scuffle. Bite or scratch, I'm not sure. The other owner's dog was off-leash, and mine was on-leash. The nurses in the ER were all advising me to get the money from the dog owner: they said that with the dog off-leash, he was responsible for the fight. Honestly, I wish the guy had been up-front and ethical and offered to cover my bills, but he wasn't. (I truthfully think he's a bit clueless... maybe I'd even say "slow." I dunno.) But, for $100, it wasn't worth the time or effort or the stress of having to be in a stupid battle. I'd gladly pay $100 to avoid having to create ill will and animosity with a neighbor. Not to mention the potential to have either dog labeled "vicious" and get on local animal control radar. So, I just let it go.

 

I do feel sympathy for this woman. I have a reactive rescue dog, too, and until I'd seen him go after another dog for some nearly-invisible body language signal, I did not know it could happen. And even when I sensed trouble, I didn't know for some months exactly what the triggers were, and how to avoid putting Buddy in a place where he'd be set off. There's a time lag between seeing signs of aggression or reactivity and having enough understanding to circumvent problems.

 

Now that I think of it, probably the best thing Lance could do for the woman would be to direct her to people in this or another forum who have the experience to tell this woman about dog parks, reactivity, and dog interactions. She definitely needs to never bring this dog to a dog park again. It's just setting up trouble.

 

Mary

[Brandon M]

Sorry to hear about Bandit being injured. I hope he recovers 100%.

[juliepoudrier]

No, I am wondering about it based on all the comments here in the not so past. Yes, I think I would feel different if this occurred someplace else (not that I don't feel what happened wasn't horrible!). Going to a dog park you are intentionally placing your dog into a group, pack, of unknown dogs. Anda has raved about the park she goes too, others have have good and bad to say. I2A just said this park was "one of the worst policed" ones, no Lance, I am not pointing at you about this park, just using the example given. Based on what these parks are set up as "dog parks" I think there is more than an inherant risk by using them.

As a non-dog-park user, I get what you're saying that if, given the reputation of many dog parks, you choose to enter one with your dog then you are accepting a certain amount of risk. But, and I hate to keep bringing up people, because I know people and dogs aren't the same, if I go to a local state park here and am attacked, should I be responsible because we all know that policing at the state parks might not be what it could be or because bad people go to state parks too? I agree that we accept some risk in everything we do outside of our own secure compounds, but still it seems to me that the average person and dog should be able to assume that they are safe in areas designated for their use (even if numerous people have posted anecdotes to the contrary).

 

I also agree that as Pam and others have said, it's entirely possible that one dog provoked the other in a very subtle manner. The humans were busy chatting with one another and not paying close attention, so who knows what really caused this particular incident? But in my pollyanna world view I still think that people (and dogs) should be able to use public areas designated for their use with a reasonable expectation of safety. And if something goes wrong, I feel that the person/dog who caused the damage does bear some responsibility (I realize that we agree on this point).

 

Here's a perhaps more relevant comparison that might make my POV a little clearer. I allow people to come out to my farm and work some of my sheep. I recognize that there is an inherent risk *to my sheep* when I do this. That said, it's generally understood by both me and the owners of visiting dogs that if their dogs cause damage to my sheep, they are responsible for the cost of the sheep or vet bills, unless I choose otherwise (that is, unless I release them from that responsibility). My understanding of your argument regarding the dog park is that in the case of people bringing dogs here since I am allowing it, I am accepting the risk of damage to my sheep, and therefore only *I* am responsible for that damage (the analogous situation to me taking a dog to a dog park knowing there's risk to my dog). But the way I see it, working my sheep is a privelege (just like going to a dog park), and as such, dog owners are responsible for damage to those sheep, even though one could argue that essentially by allowing them and their dogs here, I am accepting all the risk. Does that make sense?

 

J.

[Sue R]

I get what you are saying, Julie, and agree. If my dog was to cause damage to someone's sheep, I would feel responsible.

 

I have been to trainers/clinics where the trainer/host took responsibility for the stock and any damage (I assume something was built into the fee to cover an occasional cost), and in situations where it was plainly stated that any damage caused by myself was to be my responsibility.

 

But in the dog park, are there any posted rules or guidelines? I feel that, if my dog and myself were at fault, then I am responsible. If someone else's dog or themselves were at fault, then they are responsible. If two dogs/two people are reasonably equally at fault, then they should share the responsibility (and, with responsibility, I also mean cost).

 

The problem is that there are many people who will not accept that it was themselves or their dog(s) that are responsible. The same old "it's not my fault" that we hear over and over again, coupled with the tendancy for many people to wonder what they can "make" out of a situation (money for tenuous "pain and suffering" instead of realizing that some things are just real life).

 

The dog park my son frequents in Brooklyn seems to have very responsible owners with well-behaved or well-socialized dogs, but I think that is because those people are making the effort to take their dogs to the park because they are hands-on, dedicated owners of dogs in an urban environment. Too many people take their dogs to dog parks to "let them run and play" and have unruly, poorly-socialized, and less-than-adequately-supervised dogs. It is too bad because, I think at heart, that they are trying to do what they feel is good for the dogs but may just be misguided in their good intentions. And some are just too lazy to work with the dogs and this is an easy way out to be "a good dog owner" in their own eyes.

 

Sorry about Bandit, and I hope he recovers uneventfully. There are alternatives to dog parks and maybe they are a better idea but one's dog can't be 100% safe anywhere. We just have to do the best we can to provide the safest, most productive and fulfilling enviroment we can for our dogs.

[desertranger]

What is the lighter for?

 

To make a fire. In survival whether you're in the city or the middle of now where those Water, signaling, knife and fire are the most important things you can carry. If you like I can make a post on the subject. Better yet visit my website and blog linked below for more info.

 

 

As a non-dog-park user, I get what you're saying that if, given the reputation of many dog parks, you choose to enter one with your dog then you are accepting a certain amount of risk. But, and I hate to keep bringing up people, because I know people and dogs aren't the same, if I go to a local state park here and am attacked, should I be responsible because we all know that policing at the state parks might not be what it could be or because bad people go to state parks too? I agree that we accept some risk in everything we do outside of our own secure compounds, but still it seems to me that the average person and dog should be able to assume that they are safe in areas designated for their use (even if numerous people have posted anecdotes to the contrary).

 

Julie everyone who goes on tour with me signs a release written with large type and no fine print. Some of the following is in it.

• This is an inherently dangerous activity with a good risk of injury or death.
  
• Everyone is expected to accept their own responsibility
  
• All agree not to litigate in case of injury or death.
  
• All agree not hold me responsible in case of injury or death.
  
• Stay off rocks unless given permission to climb them double for children. Of course that doesn't stop them from climbing on the rocks.
  

Yet people still sue over the smallest things. Examples, one lady sued because her son bruised and scraped his knee on the rocks while he was climbing on them. She didn't sue over the injury, she sued because she didn't like the way I provided first aid and treated his injury

 

Another sued after insisting on going on a nature walk wearing improper (floo floo) shoes and broke a toe when she stubbed a rock.

 

On a climbing tour once I had a person threaten to sue me when he fell. He was hurt or injured just scared. He went ballistic and said I should have warned him that he could fall. I did. It's not only in the release but they get a lecture on it.

 

I teach, Accept your responsibility.

 

The catch phrase I use in class is, "Enjoy the outdoor adventure safely, it’s your responsibility".

 

I also tell them the outdoor adventure begins when you open the front door.

 

If you're dog is going to attack mine you can pretty well bet I'm going to make you accept that responsibility.

[MicheleS.]

What happened to Bandit is a huge reason why my dogs will never set foot in a dog park... ever!! Too many clueless owners. They have doggy friends that are owned by my family and my friends.

 

So sorry that happened to you and Bandit and I hope for a speedy recovery.

Michele &

Hughie &

Gypsy &

Chase

[Root Beer]

I'm sorry to hear that this happened and I wish Bandit a smooth recovery.

[Dixie_Girl]

Ranger dude, what you have people sign is totally different than what the situation here is. If your group of people are out in the wild, yes, you can expect certain things to happen. From rocks, wild life, bushes, or just the heat. But should that person in your group also expect a crazy person in the group to all of a sudden come at them with a knife; or just their fists? The dog park, IMO, cannot be held responsible, but the simple matter is, we are responsible for what our animals do. I used to tell my kids and grandkids, if you have a friend over, anything that they do will be treated as if you did it. In other words, they were responsible for their friends actions. They invited them, they know them. You would be surprised at the amount of policeing this caused! If I go to a dog park and someone's dog just attacks mine, yeah, that person is responsible. Whether it is the first time the dog ever did this or not. Whether they are a nice person or not. If my dog gets out for the first time in it's life and harrases someones livestock, or bites a person, I don't get a pass on any damage it does. This is clearly a case of what is the right thing to do. Not if the person is nice or clueless. Not whether Bandit stared at the dog or not. Her dog caused damage and we are responsible for that. Now, if Bandit attacked her dog, but got the worst end of it, that's a whole nuther kettle of fish.

[Ooky]

Lance, is Bandit ok? Let us know how he's doing today. Poor guy.

 

::

 

As for the dog park issue, way more than a "sue happy" attitude, I am very much seeing the attitude Julie brings up: if you went to a dog park, you get what you deserve. Might not get attacked today, but its coming, and it will be YOUR fault as much as -- or maybe even more than -- the person whose dog attacked yours.

 

Uh-uh, sorry, no, that is how urban areas are abandoned to jack@sses and criminals, whether it be for human pursuits or dog pursuits or marinas or parks or trails or any other public space. There is a reason Sue's son's urban dog park seems like a safe place to be - a combination of owners taking responsibility and a community claiming their space and insisting it be safe. Could someone someday walk in there with a dangerous dog and upset the whole system? Yep. Would it be anyone's fault who was innocently there that day? NO.

 

Part of the divide between urban culture and low density suburban or rural culture is that there are the possibility of urban dangers and strange dogs anywhere I go. Literally anywhere - I could step out my front door this minute to see a strange dog 20 ft from my front door. So, should I just not leave the house because I'm assuming risk by leaving? Yes, you should try to be informed and responsible, and protective of your dog, but in my world this can include going to a dog park once in a while, because if I go to the beach? Dogs. On a walk? Dogs. To the non-dog park? Dogs. To my office? Dogs. Camping? Dogs. To a bbq? Dogs. To work sheep? Dogs. Notice that the potential threat, if you view it as potentially aggressive dogs with potentially clueless, irresponsible owners who I don't necessarily know (or even worse, maybe I do know them), is EVERYWHERE. Yet, Odin has been attacked once, not at a dog park, and his attack even happened when both dogs were on leash (the attacking dog broke his collar).

 

Which brings me to, every time one of these posts is posted, several people say, this is why I'd NEVER go to one of those places. Well, it depends on what you mean. If you've got a well-policed, safe park with active and concerned owners, then you might be losing out, unless you aren't the type to want a DP anyway. Fine, more room for us. If you mean a dirty, poorly policed park, overrun by clueless owners, you're right - who needs that? But I have to say in the time I've been here, and in the archives, I think there have been way more "My dog got attacked while we were walking/running/cycling together in public on a street/trail." So, by this logic, none of us should ever go on a walk - a conclusion at least bc4ever sees through logically. In my mind this is sad and preposterous.

 

And, dogs have subtle signals and your "innocent" dog may truly be the instigator, I get that. But I'm sorry, in a public setting, your dog simply must be trustworthy not to attack, even for such grievous offenses as staring. THAT is common decency. I try never to let my dog stare at another dog to keep up my end of the bargain. And if by some reason you've misjudged your dog, then yes, the decent thing to do would be to pay for the vet and any dr. bills.

[Sue R]

As for the dog park issue, way more than a "sue happy" attitude, I am very much seeing the attitude Julie brings up: if you went to a dog park, you get what you deserve. Might not get attacked today, but its coming, and it will be YOUR fault as much as -- or maybe even more than -- the person whose dog attacked yours.

I don't see where anyone should have read this into Julie's comments. She pointed out that by using dog parks, you are exposing yourself and your dog to potential risk - the same things happen when you get out of bed in the morning and take a shower, cook breakfast, drive to work. "Get what you deserve" - no. That's not what Julie said or implied.

 

People have to be realistic that something negative or harmful can happen anytime, anywhere. Be prepared by training your dog well, choosing your options well, and keeping yourself very aware of what is happening around you so that you can avoid as many potentially dangerous situations as possible.

 

We are all responsible for making thoughtful decisions with regards to ourselves and our dogs, and dealing responsibly and fairly with whatever happens. Life is all about managing risk - if you avoid all risk, that won't be much of a life.

[Ooky]

Sorry Sue - wasn't clear. The attitude that, for example, a woman who got raped "deserved it" because of where she was, what she was wearing/doing - that is how I understood Julie's posts. I did not ever think she was championing the idea, but pointing out a parallel in that type of thinking.

[Laurae]

Sue, I think Ooky was further explaining the attitude Julie was arguing against.

[Sue R]

Oops, sorry for misunderstanding!

 

Now (and this is not PC), I have much less sympathy for someone who deliberately and knowingly puts themself or their dog into a hazardous situation, and that's another issue, I hope.

[Eileen Stein]

Lance, I'm very sorry this happened, and I hope Bandit and you are both well on your way to a full and speedy recovery. What a terrifying experience it must have been! It's a lucky thing that the male dog didn't join in the attack.

 

Whether the owner of the other dog is legally responsible for your damages depends on what the law is in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. There is a lot of variation in the law in different states, as well as variation in factual circumstances. My best guess would be that if the incident took place in a dog park in VA, the owner would not be legally liable unless you could prove that she knew, based on the dog's past behavior, that the dog had a propensity for this type of attack. Her moral responsibility is a different story, of course, and certainly open to discussion. IMO, she should have offered to pay -- or at least contribute to -- your medical/vet bills if she was financially able.