Dog bites child

[Silverstarqueen]

Just for the record, I did not suggest they read *only* section 49 or *only* facebook pages. I suggested they "get informed", It seemed obvious to me that a dog owner would be familiar with the bylaws, but that's why I hesitate to give any advice, because then people say "you said to do this or that, and now see how you've mislead me". I did say not to rely on a dog control officer for legal advice, because I and other have gotten bad, wrong, and unhelpful information from them. That doesn't mean you can't ask them, but for legal advice a lawyer would be more impartial and certainly give you a different perspective. I believe on this or another thread someone said a dog control officer told them (when asked how to stop people from approaching their dog) if they tell someone they meet that their dog bites, that that somehow helps them if someone approaches and gets bitten. In fact, if they did this, they have a) admitted that their dog is aggressive and that they know it has a propensity to bite b) if the person (example child) gets bitten the owner has allowed that person to be exposed to an aggressive dog and stood by knowing they would probably be hurt. If that doesn't set you up for legal trouble, I don't know what would. I also know of a situation where a dog control officer was busy ticketing someone for their dog's behavior(alleged, because the officer did not observe any negative behavior when they approached the dog), and when asked what they have to do to prevent further tickets, were told "Just keep doing what you are doing". Well isn't that what got them the ticket in the first place. In another more serious case (in fact more often than once), someone's dog was being confiscated, without warning,and the owners are told to sign papers , which they do , thinking it is part of the procedure when their dog is taken. In fact they were not told that they were agreeing to have their dog put down, and have a legal right to contest the proceedings, but certainly not by signing the papers given. That is why I am telling people to get informed.
In this case someone is saying that because dog control does not seem to be involved they are not. In fact the dog owner will not necessarily know that a complaint has been lodged or that Dog control is planning to confiscate the dog, because for obvious reasons that would alert the owner and interfere with the effort to take the dog. If they are planning to take a dog Dog control would far rather lull the owner into a false sense of security while they conduct their investigation. They will not necessarily be asking the owner first, but might talk to police, medical personelle as to severity of injury, or who admitting what to them about the bite. No complaint has to be lodged for them to decide to take action on a bite. Hence the fact that just because it "seems" Dog Control is not taking action, does not necessarily mean that they don't intend to.

[Silverstarqueen]

And yet another example of misleading advice , which we will not attribute to Dog Control officer:

quote "
Here in Vernon.... If my dog bites a kid on the face today - and the incident is reported to Dog Control - she would be labelled an "Aggressive Dog".

As the owner of an "Aggressive Dog", I would have to make sure that she is leashed and muzzled at all times while in public, or while in her own yard, tethered and/or secured in an enclosure. She would NOT automatically be put down, as some seem to suggest.

If my "Aggressive Dog" is not muzzled and/or escapes her tether to bite yet another person, then YES, she could be considered a "Dangerous Dog", and Dog Control could seek a destruction order - with good reason. "

Are you suggesting that because we are in Vernon that Dog Control could not seize this dog, without the owner's permission, using section 49 of the community charter, and seek to have the dog put down, if they established that the dog bit a child, and if they "believed" the dog would bite again in the future? It seems like you are suggesting the dog has to bite at least once, and maybe twice before they can seek a destruction order. There is no requirement for Dog Control to use milder local bylaws, if they see fit to use section 49 (at least until it is amended).

[Fancy]

From what I've read, it's a three strikes you're out kind of thing (it's a tiered system). Dog Control there seems to be reasonable. It certainly appears Dog Control is complaint driven and most of the dogs put down have been surrendered.

Fact is DOGS will can and will bite people, doesn't matter if they are a pittbull or a poodle. So lets stop blaming breeds, and instead look at dog behavior and what could cause a dog to attack a child (often times because it is being somehow disturbed by the "victim").

This is how the majority of bites occur according to statistics I've read online. Faces of children are bit because they are quite often at the same level. A bite can just be a nip but do damage because of soft tissue and the victim jerking away. Since the officers said the investigation took a turn it's left up to our imagination what happened.

[Ingevan22]

Silverstarqueen, perhaps for you it is more a matter of trust in your local government, as you don't seem convinced that the bylaw would be applied properly.

I will repeat myself here: Dog owners have a responsibility to inform themselves about the bylaws that apply in their area. Call your local government or check the bylaws on their website, or follow this link to find the dog control bylaws that apply in your area: http://dogcontrol.ca/dog-licensing/dog-control-bylaws/

An unprovoked dog bite is considered a sign of aggression. People have a right to be protected from aggressive dogs. A dog being labelled "Aggressive" after it bites someone is not unreasonable. Keeping an aggressive dog muzzled and leashed while in public is not unreasonable. Charging higher fees to impound aggressive dogs (i.e. making repeat offenders pay a bigger fine), or ticketing unmuzzled aggressive dogs, is also not unreasonable.

Is there anyone on this forum who wishes to encounter an unmuzzled or unleashed "Aggressive Dog" in a Dog Park, on a trail, or on the street? I don't think so.

The SPCA is currently lobbying the Province about its concerns regarding the application of Community Charter Section 49 - Special Powers in Relation to Dangerous Dogs.

But before DogControlHaters start waving banners, please read the SPCA's position paper on Dangerous Dogs. See http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/welfare/position-statements/dangerous-dogs.pdf

You may be surprised to learn that the SPCA supports the creation of a centralized Dog Bite Registry. The SPCA goes even further and suggest that other persons, not just Dog Control officers, or the dog's owner or the victim, should be encouraged to report aggressive dogs:

"Registration of aggressive dogs through reporting by veterinarians, groomers, police, postal carriers, animal control officers, meter readers, and humane organizations;"

In response to Silverstarqueen's suggestion that in Vernon, Section 49 would somehow be used to trump local "milder" bylaws, this is simply absurd. If my dog is not considered "dangerous", that section DOES NOT and CANNOT apply.

Here is the definition of "Dangerous Dog" from the Community Charter, Section 49 :

"dangerous dog" means a dog that

(a) has killed or seriously injured a person,

(b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public place or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog, or

(c) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person.

So let's go back to this particular case, and see whether, based on what we know, the dog could be considered "dangerous" under Section 49. The type of injury was, according to most reports, an unprovoked nip on the face of a child at a home that was familiar to both the child and the dog.

Section 49(a) does not apply - the child was not killed or seriously injured.

Section 49(b) does not apply.

Section 49(c) does not apply - a nip is not enough to convince ANYONE that the dog is likely to "kill or seriously injure a person".

This dog cannot be considered a Dangerous Dog, based on one nip to a child's face. Section 49 does not apply. According to our local bylaws, the dog would be considered and registered as an Aggressive Dog, and should be kept muzzled and leashed at all times while in public.

Had the kid's arm been ripped off, Section 49 could come into play. The nature of the injury will help dictate the appropriate response. No judge will grant a destruction order for a nip on the face. Serious injury or death? Yes. Minor fleshwound? No.

Still don't want to believe what I write, or what the Community Charter states, or your local bylaw? Then consider this: The lengthy legal battles you have surely witnessed (e.g. Diesel in CORD) indicate exactly the opposite of what you are apparently aiming to suggest (?): Dog Control is not out to kill your dog.

[Silverstarqueen]

I actually agree with most of what you have posted, except for one, I certainly do not "hate" dog control officers, and have often pointed out in the past, instances where I thought they were reasonable. I have never argued that truly dangerous dogs should not be controlled in whatever manner keeps the public safe. Those who are against the way some laws have been applied are talking about cases where they feel the law has been applied very unfairly,or where the law is poorly defined, without going into every detail. I don't know anywhere, where someone stated the bite to this child was a "nip" or did not cause serious injury. People surmised that it might have been serious because paramedics and the police were called in, and the dog was taken into custody (or was it, the report seemed to be unclear). All I have promoted is people getting informed, being careful where their information or misinformation comes from (based on reports from many people), and using that information to protect their dog, and to read the law carefully, not trust that is will always be appllied fairly. How that translates to hating Dog control officers is beyond me. People have to be responsible for their dogs, I have made that clear, and some didn't like it when I suggested that either, but that is what the law says, and that is the point I thought I made clearly. As far as what is a minor injury, and what is a serious injury, the dog does not have to "rip off someone's arm" in order for a Dog control officer, or a judge to determine it was serious enough to put the dog down. We still don't know how serious this child's injuries were, but it sent them by ambulance to the hospital. There is a boy in Kelowna who was bitten a year or so ago(it looked pretty serious to me), the parent certainly believes it was serious. The family seems to be still traumatized a year later. What one person considers a "nip" another might feel differently about. I have had a few good bites as a child and as an adult, and thought nothing of them, and was not traumatized. A child can also be traumatized at the thought that a dog was destroyed because it "bit" or "nipped" them. or they might not. It might even be helpful if someone could clearly explain what is a "serious" bite or not, since that seems to be up for debate.
My other big concern is that people throw around terms like "aggressive" and there does not seem to be much agreement on what exactly that means either. One person can look at a dog's behavior and definitively state that it's "aggressive", another may look at the same dog and say the dog is not aggressive. Again there seems to be no clear definition, and anyone can claim they see aggression when someone else would disagree, even amongst people with experience with dogs. To go further then, experts and non experts alike then want to claim they can "predict" that an aggressive dog will injure someone in future, and therefore is a "dangerous dog". There aren't many laws I can think of where a person is prosecuted for what they haven't done (yet), still we claim we can predict a dog's behavior and then put it down because someone "believes" it will bite someone in the future (when it has not bitten anyone in the past). So it seems there is a poorly defined slippery slope between "aggressive" (which could simply be a dog barking at someone), and "Dangerous " which could be a bite which one person calls a "nip" and someone else calls "serious injury". An example might be Shadow, who approached someone and apparently did not bite or nip (according to independent witnesses and a police report), but according to someone else the dog was threatening and did bite seriously, and according to a Dog Control officer was dangerous enough to confiscate and apply to have her put down.
We are expecting dog owners to stay within the law, but the law seems to be very unclear when it comes down to the detail of its application, and that seems unfair to many. Lest my comments again be misinterpreted: I am not against Dog Control Officers, I am very concerned about vague laws, being misapplied, and owner just trusting blindly that they can somehow follow a law which is not clear, or believe that Dog Control officers always are clear themselves as to what is "aggression" or "dangerous" or "serious" or not. It's not the Dog control officers fault that so many of these terms are not well defined, but they are prepared to hand out tickets or apply to have a dog put down, based on their "belief" of what a dog has done as alleged by a layperson, or is likely to do in the future. This is a power (or a burden you might say) that we don't even place on police officers. It sounds so simple, just follow the law and dog owners will be fine. Well if it were that simple we wouldn't have so many people upset about how these laws work in practice.

[Ingevan22]

Again, reading the bylaws that apply in your area, and especially, the definitions of an "Aggressive Dog" or a "Dangerous Dog", really does help provide dog owners with an understanding of what the RCMP or Dog Control can and can't do, when it comes to dealing with a dog that has caused injury to a human, animal or property.

The term "Aggressive Dog" is defined in the RDNO Bylaw - see http://www.rdno.ca/bylaws/2466_dog_control.pdf

Dog Control must abide by this bylaw and its definitions, which means they cannot arbitrarily flag a dog as "Aggressive" if it doesn't meet the conditions spelled out by the bylaw. Dog Control also cannot use the dictionary definition of "aggressive", or what one of us regular folks might consider to be "aggressive", they can only go by the definition that is currently in the bylaw. The test for a "Dangerous Dog", as per the Community Charter Section 49, is even more stringent.

It's not up to one individual officer to make a judgment call. Beyond having to meet the definitions and regulations as spelled out in the bylaw, Dog Control would also be required to complete a mess of paperwork, including applying to a judge for a court order, before being allowed to seize any dog. Due process.

Silverstarqueen, you imply that these bylaws are too vague to be understood, and/or are applied unfairly. I don't agree that this particular (RDNO #2466) bylaw is too vague, but I definitely share your interest and concern about bylaws being applied fairly.

If my dog bites/nips/harasses/molests someone (and doesn't seriously injure or kill the person), Dog Control can register her as "Aggressive" and I will sign a form to release her that promises that I will keep her leashed and muzzled while out in public, and tethered or enclosed while on my property. It is my duty as a responsible dog owner to protect the public from my dog.

And that is my duty, all day every day, regardless of whether or not my dog is "Aggressive".

[Silverstarqueen]

Again, reading the bylaws that apply in your area, and especially, the definitions of an "Aggressive Dog" or a "Dangerous Dog", really does help provide dog owners with an understanding of what the RCMP or Dog Control can and can't do, when it comes to dealing with a dog that has caused injury to a human, animal or property.

The term "Aggressive Dog" is defined in the RDNO Bylaw - see http://www.rdno.ca/bylaws/2466_dog_control.pdf

Dog Control must abide by this bylaw and its definitions, which means they cannot arbitrarily flag a dog as "Aggressive" if it doesn't meet the conditions spelled out by the bylaw. Dog Control also cannot use the dictionary definition of "aggressive", or what one of us regular folks might consider to be "aggressive", they can only go by the definition that is currently in the bylaw. The test for a "Dangerous Dog", as per the Community Charter Section 49, is even more stringent.

It's not up to one individual officer to make a judgment call. Beyond having to meet the definitions and regulations as spelled out in the bylaw, Dog Control would also be required to complete a mess of paperwork, including applying to a judge for a court order, before being allowed to seize any dog. Due process.

Silverstarqueen, you imply that these bylaws are too vague to be understood, and/or are applied unfairly. I don't agree that this particular (RDNO #2466) bylaw is too vague, but I definitely share your interest and concern about bylaws being applied fairly.

If my dog bites/nips/harasses/molests someone (and doesn't seriously injure or kill the person), Dog Control can register her as "Aggressive" and I will sign a form to release her that promises that I will keep her leashed and muzzled while out in public, and tethered or enclosed while on my property. It is my duty as a responsible dog owner to protect the public from my dog.

And that is my duty, all day every day, regardless of whether or not my dog is "Aggressive".

Here's where they bylaw seems unfair: it also states that an "Aggressive Dog" means any dog which is found to be aggressive by a Dog control officer. The way it is stated, the dog does not have to bite anyone or do anything, if the dog control officer has found the dog is "aggressive", this could be the only condition necessary specified by the law. The definition includes dogs who bit without provocation (so would include the dog in question it seems), but it could be any dog the Officer has found is aggressive for whatever unspecified reason.
There are other problems with the definition of "Aggressive Dog" in the bylaw. e.g. that a dog is aggressive if he approaches a person in a menacing fashion. It doesn't say how close they have to approach, so any amble in the general direction? even if the dog is confined in it's own yard or kennel by a fence or chain, and the person is outside the fence?, what is a "menacing fashion"? is it barking at all, whining, smiling, wagging it's tail? or is it menacing because the person walking by says it is? What is considered "provocation" If the person yells at the dog, or kicks it,swings a stick at it,? there is no definition. Another condition to be found "Aggressive Dog" is a Guard dog. If a dog is trained only to bark at intruders to "protect" the person's property ,( that includes 90% of the dogs out there), but has not bit anyone, according to the bylaw, that is an Aggressive Dog. Some people think that a dog which is formally trained to protect is aggressive (which it seems is expressed in this bylaw), but an aggressive dog would not normally be used for protection of a home, or they'd run around inappropriately biting people who are not a threat. A friendly, well socialized dog actually makes the best Guard dog, yet he would automatically be an "Aggressive Dog" according to this bylaw if he is trained in any way to protect his property.

[mexi cali]

*removed/Jo*

I say dog bites anyone stories go the way of the emoticon.