Dogs as Public Nuisance, questions re hearing, abatement

[Alex23]

Even if the OP is vindicated in court, I would still question the judgment of keeping these dangerous animals. Maybe they need muzzles.

[Adalaide78]

I have to agree Alex. Where I live a dangerous dog MUST be muzzled if it's not in precisely the type of enclosure mandated by law. A dog deemed a nuisance is illegal to own and will be put down after the owner is given 5 days to appeal. The OP's dog clearly fits the definition of a nuisance by my local laws.

[Thora]

Originally Posted by Adalaide78

I have to agree Alex. Where I live a dangerous dog MUST be muzzled if it's not in precisely the type of enclosure mandated by law. A dog deemed a nuisance is illegal to own and will be put down after the owner is given 5 days to appeal. The OP's dog clearly fits the definition of a nuisance by my local laws.

According to the local laws here, any animal who violates any part of the Animal control section is a nuisance. So, a dog could be a nuisance by being at large, I don't hardly think that is a good reason to abate a dog or make him a dangerous animal or put it down.

According to the local laws here any animal of a species or type likely to cause injury to a person or has one in a 48 month period caused injury to a person..

According to the law, my dogs are not dangerous.

I am not trying to say I have no responsibility in the situation, if I felt that way, I could not change anything to prevent such an incident from happening again.

If my dogs are determined to be a nuisance, the law will put restrictions on me and my dogs including that they be kept on a leash when in public and that they wear a muzzle in public. It does not say I can not take them into public, I would even be allowed to take them to a dog park, as long as I kept them leashed and muzzled.

So the restrictions that would be put into place really would not solve the potential of another situation. My dogs were leashed all the time any way. It was the "not having control"

If I was an irresponsible dog owner, or a real dumb one, I could take my dog out on a leash, with a muzzle, and he could still hurt another dog as I would still not have control over him.

Changing from a harness to a training collar has given me 100% control over my dogs and professional training has curbed any interest in other dogs at all. They don't even look their direction when walking by.

[Adalaide78]

Originally Posted by Thora

Changing from a harness to a training collar has given me 100% control over my dogs and professional training has curbed any interest in other dogs at all. They don't even look their direction when walking by.

The problem with this statement is that it doesn't address what was the case when the incident happened. This is like saying "I know I didn't have insurance when I rear-ended that guy, but I do now so it's not a problem." Or maybe "I use a trigger lock on my gun now that I learned my lesson. Too bad that someone had to die for me to learn my lesson." You have control NOW, you didn't THEN. This really isn't about how your dog acts today but about how it acted the day it killed another dog. Regardless of your actions and the changes you've made since then, the facts from that day have not changed. While I'm sure (much as in DUI cases things like voluntary rehab can help) that the steps you've taken since then will help to assure them you now can control your dog I don't see how that relieves you of responsibility for what happened.

[Thora]

Originally Posted by Adalaide78

The problem with this statement is that it doesn't address what was the case when the incident happened. This is like saying "I know I didn't have insurance when I rear-ended that guy, but I do now so it's not a problem." Or maybe "I use a trigger lock on my gun now that I learned my lesson. Too bad that someone had to die for me to learn my lesson." You have control NOW, you didn't THEN. This really isn't about how your dog acts today but about how it acted the day it killed another dog. Regardless of your actions and the changes you've made since then, the facts from that day have not changed. While I'm sure (much as in DUI cases things like voluntary rehab can help) that the steps you've taken since then will help to assure them you now can control your dog I don't see how that relieves you of responsibility for what happened.

This is exactly about how the dogs act today. If they act the same way they did when the incident happened, it will most likely happen again.

As much as we don't like to make mistakes, we can't change them, we can only learn from them so they are not repeated.

I am truely sorry the dog died. I am not trying to be relieved of any responsibility, the other party who was breaking the law, negligent and yes, their dog died because of their own actions and now they don't have to take responsibility for their actions, I am.

They have not been to the hearings, they did not even file the report, I offered to take their dog to the vet and they choose to let it die instead. Yet, I am the one who was wrong because my dog was bigger and killed the dog.

Could you imagine if I looked at dog ownership and responsibility like the person who lost their dog? If they had the big dog rather then the small one, I may have been attacked rather then my dog protecting himself and me.

And most likely they would not have cared enough to take the dog to training to prevent it from happening again, why? because they don't care in the first place. Why would you think they would care the next or the next..

The only true mistakes are those we learn nothing from. So, you get in an accident and dont have insurance, the most responsible thing you can do is to get insurance so it won't happen again. That does not make it okay that it happened, but it certainly shows you realize you made a mistake and are responsible enough to not let it happen again.

I originally posted with a question about the public nuisance hearing procedure and the difference in them abating each dog while combining the hearings into one, using the witnesses from one as evidence for the other.

And I was asking what the difference was in them abating the dogs verses the property.

I do thank you all for your input and suggestions anyway.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Thora

If my dogs are determined to be a nuisance, the law will put restrictions on me and my dogs including that they be kept on a leash when in public and that they wear a muzzle in public. It does not say I can not take them into public, I would even be allowed to take them to a dog park, as long as I kept them leashed and muzzled.

So the restrictions that would be put into place really would not solve the potential of another situation. My dogs were leashed all the time any way. It was the "not having control"

This sounds very similar to the "potentially dangerous dog" (as distinguished from "dangerous dog") laws I cited earlier, with the addition of the muzzle, and sounds like a reasonable solution.

I don't see how a dog could kill another one while wearing a muzzle.

Is this a lifetime designation, or does it expire in 36 months like the "potentially dangerous dog"?

[CJane]

Originally Posted by Stevef

This sounds very similar to the "potentially dangerous dog" (as distinguished from "dangerous dog") laws I cited earlier, with the addition of the muzzle, and sounds like a reasonable solution.

I don't see how a dog could kill another one while wearing a muzzle.

I used to train greyhounds for the track. These dogs, when in training, are highly tuned, aggressive machines with an incredibly high prey drive - that's why they chase that rabbit so intently (it's scented with blood).

Anyway, because of this, they either have to be kept in isolation - which makes them crazy because they're pack animals - or they have to be muzzled at all times.

It didn't happen often, but in the year I worked at the kennel, 2 or 3 dogs were killed by the other dogs while all were muzzled. They continually pace their pens, and when one falls behind, the others turn on it. They can cause pretty serious (and obviously life-threatening) internal injuries, even if they can't bite.

In the scenario OP presents, it wouldn't happen. But one cannot say "My dog is muzzled and is therefore no threat to anyone"

[Thora]

Originally Posted by Stevef

This sounds very similar to the "potentially dangerous dog" (as distinguished from "dangerous dog") laws I cited earlier, with the addition of the muzzle, and sounds like a reasonable solution.

I don't see how a dog could kill another one while wearing a muzzle.

Is this a lifetime designation, or does it expire in 36 months like the "potentially dangerous dog"?

the Calif Dangerous Dog , the dog can be removed from the list, or the restrictions can be lifted after 36 mo.

In my county, it is a lifetime deal.

[Thora]

Originally Posted by CJane

I used to train greyhounds for the track. These dogs, when in training, are highly tuned, aggressive machines with an incredibly high prey drive - that's why they chase that rabbit so intently (it's scented with blood).

Anyway, because of this, they either have to be kept in isolation - which makes them crazy because they're pack animals - or they have to be muzzled at all times.

It didn't happen often, but in the year I worked at the kennel, 2 or 3 dogs were killed by the other dogs while all were muzzled. They continually pace their pens, and when one falls behind, the others turn on it. They can cause pretty serious (and obviously life-threatening) internal injuries, even if they can't bite.

In the scenario OP presents, it wouldn't happen. But one cannot say "My dog is muzzled and is therefore no threat to anyone"

This is so true, as the muzzle does not give the owner control of the dog magically, the dog can still do many of the things that are listed and could cause injury to a person or even a dog. (Like jump on somebody and knock them over) The owner, in a situation like mine, needs to train the dog(s) so control is kept when the dog may want to dart after a dog.

[Thora]

you have nothing to say now? all that time you put into responding, you just back out of the conversation without another peep?

[Thora]

you have no response to what a pet owner like me is? why in the world would you make such a comment and then not respond when asked for you to explain yourself?

[swrdmbo]

You keep saying that you take responsibility for what happened, and then immediately place the blame back on the other dogs.The other dog owners were in the wrong as well, but in both instances your dogs were not under control.

You seem very combative in your defense of the dogs. You admit you (and your friend) did not have control over your dogs.This is a real problem. I am glad you have trained the dog, but I am not convinced a dog that has killed 2 other dogs will always be 100% under control.

I am surprised you are waiting for a hearing to tell you to keep your dog muzzled when you walk her. She may be able to cause damage to yet another dog but the damage should be much less while you regain control of her should there ever be another incident.

You have a very large dog.She has killed two other dogs.How can you not consider her a public nuisance? She is dangerous, and say what you will, a dog that has that kind of drive toward approaching dogs...that aggression can NEVER be trained out of them. That being said...it is imperative that you NEVER let your guard down when walking her.Please make sure she has a muzzle. You sound way too confident of your ability to control her, and frankly, I just don't buy it.