GO!

Dangerous dog law , does size matter?

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

  
Princesse- Lily CGN

I am RoyalChi!
 
 
Barked: Fri Oct 19, '12 3:55am PST 
I found this article:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tiny-chihuahua-designated-dange rous-dog-114341043.html

Believe it or not, I agree with this. Sort of... We have a similar bylaw but ours specifically states that a dog is dangerous if it attacks without provocation "off property". Of course we also have a bylaw that states a dog must be under your control at all times.

I have two problems with this particular story. One is the dog was on it's own property. Although one could make a case that it was not properly restrained. Also there was no proven bite/damage. Although, I am not familiar with that city's particular bylaw in that regard, so maybe there doesn't have to be.

Other than that, I agree that a dog that exhibits behavior that qualifies it as a dangerous dog under bylaw guidelines should be qualified that way, no matter what the size. Which is my roundabout way of saying that I would rather see these type of bylaws than BSL.

What do you guys think?
[notify]
Valentine

I has a happy.- It is for you.
 
 
Barked: Fri Oct 19, '12 5:43pm PST 
I agree with it as well. Such legislation is more about addressing behavior than any potential damage, which is exactly as it should be. way to go
[notify]
Farley

Farlekiin the- Dragonborn
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 2:23am PST 
A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog, regardless of breed or size, imo.
[notify]

Baylee

My Baylee- forever <3
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 9:46am PST 
Hi wave This is my city. This has been all over the news. While I do think that breed or size should not make a difference, I think it's ridiculous to give the label of dangerous dog on a first non serious bite. It does not say if this dog has a history of biting, aggression, or even being out of the owner physical control ( out of fenced area or off leash). I think if there is a history then yes the label. We do have a breed ban here as well, which went into effect about 7 years ago. I really think what we need is to oust the breed ban and make the owners accountable for bad behaviour if the dog is repeatedly bites or is at large, unless the first incident is serious and unprovoked. So if this is a first offence I feel this dog and owners should be given a second chance to change and fix the problem.
[notify]
Baylee

My Baylee- forever <3
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 10:15am PST 
Hi wave This is my city. This has been all over the news. While I do think that breed or size should not make a difference, I think it's ridiculous to give the label of dangerous dog on a first non serious bite. It does not say if this dog has a history of biting, aggression, or even being out of the owner physical control ( out of fenced area or off leash). I think if there is a history then yes the label. We do have a breed ban here as well, which went into effect about 7 years ago. I really think what we need is to oust the breed ban and make the owners accountable for bad behaviour if the dog is repeatedly bites or is at large, unless the first incident is serious and unprovoked. So if this is a first offence I feel this dog and owners should be given a second chance to change and fix the problem.
[notify]
Opheila

It ain't over- till the fat- kitty sings
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 2:17pm PST 
I feel that designating a dog dangerous should be a case by case basis. It needs to be based on how often has the dog attacked, is the owner exercising proper precautions, what is the individual situation.
If people repeatedly come by the gate of a private property and get bit-that is not a dangerous dog.
If someone is trespassing your yard and gets bit that is not a dangerous dog.
However if your dog leaps at somebody walking on a public sidewalk, you and the dog are at fault.
If a mail carrier or someone innocently knocks at your door and WRRROOOOOFFFFF, then you better believe that's a dangerous dog...
Size and breed don't matter, it's the behavior
[notify]
Princesse- Lily CGN

I am RoyalChi!
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 4:14pm PST 
Thanks for your input, Bayleesmile I appreciate it as you are from the city in question. As I said, there were some unanswered questions in this story. My interest was in some of the comments, which suggested that since the dog was 3 pounds, designating it a dangerous dog was ridiculous. If the dog did indeed violate the bylaw, then it should be declared dangerous, no matter what size it was. I agree that the BSL should be overturned. Here in NB we have no BSL and as you may be aware, some of the "Pitbulls" of Ontario were sent here. I was proud of our province for rejecting BSL in favor of dangerous dog laws.
[notify]
Baylee

My Baylee- forever <3
 
 
Barked: Tue Oct 23, '12 6:14pm PST 
Your welcome Princess Lily. You are lucky to not have BSL. I do think we are in the process of reversing that decision, though. I agree that size makes no difference and if this dog is indeed a danger and the owners can not control or contain her, then yes she deserves the label. I agree with Ophelia in the fact that each case should be investigated throughly and the decision made on a individual basis. Size or breed should not be the deciding factor.
[notify]