another dog thread

[blues]

i am just stating what the law is.. not how some people choose to apply it.

that IS what the law states wether you like it or not.

I would love it, this isn't a pissing contest. But do you not think somewhere down the line if your interpretation of that clause were correct, or even would stand up, then action would have been taken against those that attacked the child and postal worker? I am sure the local constabulary is totally less informed than you in this respect (and I'm not being sarcastic) but SOMEONE would have made it evident by now that the DDA DOES cover private property attacks in the way all these instances have occurred rather than the victims/unions still fighting for a change.

E2A, Even if it *might* stand up in court, the courts have the jurisdiction to apply "Golden rule" which is where a statute doesn't quite cover the exact circumstances they can apply the "intent" - we can agree this type of incident would be what the DDA clause "intended" to address can't we?

*Sees pingu edit* - the problem here is not in how I choose to interpret it but in how it HAS been interpreted i.e. that the clause does NOT cover these incidents.

 

[wiskey]

Dog owners have a legal/civil responsibility to keep their dogs under control and prevent escape/straying - insurance for dogs usually includes 3rd party cover for that reasons. Most domestic animals are treated the same except for cats who have what is usually referred to as a 'free spirit' loophole whereby the cat owner is not held responsible for straying/damage to property - this is fairly unique amongst domestic animals. If a dog enters another person's property and does damage to human, pet, or property, the dog owner is held responsible in law.

apparently the dog owners insurance covers third party people, property and animals except cats.

 

[Funky_monks]

oh right, I've never had a dog. I just thought that you generally didn't trust a dog that had killed something, I just picked up that the norm is to get rid of it. Maybe thats just the cases that make the news.

Do dogs eat cats often then?

I have been around dogs all my life. I own dogs whose only small chore to 'earn' their keep is rat destruction. It does not follow that a dog that has killed small animals would kill a child. The cat analogy is a better one, I'll admit: If you r cat has killed a mouse, does that mean that it will attack people?

 

[wiskey]

I have been around dogs all my life. I own dogs whose only small chore to 'earn' their keep is rat destruction. It does not follow that a dog that has killed small animals would kill a child. The cat analogy is a better one, I'll admit: If you r cat has killed a mouse, does that mean that it will attack people?

No I understand that every case is different. And every dog is different.

I guess I was wrong in my assumption that dogs killing other animals was a rare event.

 

[Thora]

Do dogs eat cats often then?

When they can catch them My nan's dog has had a cat that wandered into her garden, as has my friend's dogs. A lot of dogs will chase smaller animals.

 

[wiskey]

oh right thats a bit depressing.

I dunno why I thought a dog would distinguish between rabbits in a wood and a cat in a kitchen.

*worries about cats*

 

[Pingu]

I would love it, this isn't a pissing contest. But so you not think somewhere down the line if your interpretation of that clause were correct, or even would stand up, then action wouldhve been taken against those that attacked the child and postal worker? I am sure the local constabulary is totally less informed than you in this rezpect (and I'm not being sarcastic) but SOMEONE would have made it evident by now that the DDA DOES cover private property attacks in the way all these instances have occurred rather than the victims/unions still fighting for a change.

sorry if this isnt in line with your understanding but I have been involved with the DDA for over 15 years. I have worked with one of the two barristers in teh country who understand the law helping to prepare defenses for over 100 people and have also worked with a guy called Trevor Cooper who is acknowledged as the UKs foremost expert on canine law. so I am fairly certain in my interpretaion or ratehr their interpretation. I am not a lawyer - I do behavioural work - but this is a law I know very well indeed. I was a founder member of an organisation set up specifically to fight against the DDA and other aspects of breed specific legislation. IMO its a shit law that doenst actually protect anyone and just punishes the dogs rather than their owners.

the DDA can cover private property provided the dog had no right to be tehre. The reason why its rarely used is its often seen as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The DA 1871 will normally be used IME unless the incident involved a very serious injury to a person or the dog was used as a weapon.

 

[Funky_monks]

I guess I was wrong in my assumption that dogs killing other animals was a rare event.

They are carnivorous after all.

 

[wiskey]

Yeah I just hadn't really thought about it. I spose its not something I'm exposed to.

 

[blues]

I have worked with one of the two barristers in teh country who understand the law

Ok, draw their attention to those two links I put up would you please. Seriously.

 

[Epona]

apparently the dog owners insurance covers third party people, property and animals except cats.

The reason cats are excluded from policies is because cats are legally allowed to 'stray' - that 'free spirit' clause I mentioned earlier - and quite easily (and with no blame on either cat or dog owner) enter a dog's territory and be attacked. The insurance companies typically exempt themselves from paying out in situations that are likely to occur. The legal situation is slightly different. If a cat came into a dog's garden and was killed or injured there would be no legal justification for a claim from either party against the other. It's the fact that the dog strayed onto someone else's property that makes it a legal issue - but one not covered by that insurance policy. The fact that the policy doesn't cover it does not mean that there is no legal issue here though, just that the insurers are covering their own financial arse by exempting it.

 

[Funky_monks]

For what its worth, a dog killed one of my chickens once, I got a fiver to buy a new one, and a chicken dinner.

 

[Thora]

oh right thats a bit depressing.

I dunno why I thought a dog would distinguish between rabbits in a wood and a cat in a kitchen.

*worries about cats*

I think anything small and furry is probably worth a chase to dogs. Though my friend's staffie tried (and failed) to take on a fully grown pig once

Usually cats are much cleverer/faster than dogs, plus they can climb trees

 

[wiskey]

Though my friend's staffie tried (and failed) to take on a fully grown pig once :eek

 

[Funky_monks]

I think anything small and furry is probably worth a chase to dogs. Though my friend's staffie tried (and failed) to take on a fully grown pig once

Jesus! The poor dog! I've never seen a dog attempting to worry a pig, I know which one my money'd be on. Certainly mine have never shown any interest in any pigs we might have had around.

 

[Pingu]

Ok, draw their attention to those two links I put up would you please. Seriously.

they make a v good living out of the fact that few others in the legal profession understand the law . one of them tbh is a cow but the otehr is cool and has a good grasp of common sense too.

trevors website can be found here btw. its a good source of information regarding canine law

http://www.doglaw.co.uk/