Dog fight aftermath.

Paradigm

elsien wrote: »

The thing that sticks out for me is was the collie actually attacking yours, or was it leaping round like a loon because it has no doggy manners? While it should undoubtedly still be kept under control, I think for me that would make a bit of difference as to how I perceived it if I were the other dogs owner. Although that's a personal point of view, that's all.

That's a very good point & one I can't answer. It ran & jumped at him, it's previous behaviour suggests it wasn't playing though.

elsien

Just that if Mrs has gone home and said poor Fido, all he wanted to do was play and look what those 2 brutes have done to him, it might explain why mister is so adamant you should pay.
But if she's hanging onto the collie because its snarling at yours, she hasn't really got a leg to stand on. And as a previous owner of a dog reactive dog, off lead "they only want to play" dogs were the bane of my life.

con1888

Your dogs were on lead, his weren't = his fault. If his dogs likes to run up to and fight other dogs then it should be on the lead.

I personally wouldn't be offering to pay a thing, if they had control of their dog it wouldn't have happened.

meritaten

I wouldn't pay either - its the law that dogs must be on leads in public places - and they didn't obey that and THIER dog caused a fight. Whether it only intended to play or not - their dog was off lead and NOT under control.
and as to muzzling your two - that's insane! they aren't dangerous unless attacked! as others have pointed out - how can they defend themselves or you if they are muzzled? they haven't been known to attack defenceless dogs or people have they?

Person_one

I suggested muzzling as clearly these are strong dogs who can do a lot of damage if they are forced to defend themselves. Muzzling is not because they are to blame, or because they are aggressive, but to protect them from the consequences of other owner's actions. We've all heard the stories of over zealous application of the dangerous dogs act.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Person_one wrote: »

I suggested muzzling as clearly these are strong dogs who can do a lot of damage if they are forced to defend themselves. Muzzling is not because they are to blame, or because they are aggressive, but to protect them from the consequences of other owner's actions. We've all heard the stories of over zealous application of the dangerous dogs act.

so it should be muzzled incase the CPS decides to prosecute the wrong owner is pretty much what your saying.


how will a muzzle protect the dogs from other dogs actions?


the whole point of the dog not being muzzled is when a dog attacks it CAN defend it self and DO damage to the attacking dog or do dogs not have a basic right to defend itself?

dug123

If I was in your situation I would not consider contributing a single penny, if the dog that approached you was not on a lead and under its owners control.
If my dog was attacked (my dog is always on a lead when out and about) I would have joined in and I always carry a photo stick with me which you can use for sticking in the ground and mounting your camera on top of, so it has a metal spike at one end and a big wooden knob at the other covering the camera mount.
I bought it after one of my dogs was attacked and killed last year in a local field by a dog which was not on the lead.
I had him for 15 years (terrier) and he was just about blind and deaf and never harmed anyone in his life.
I had 2 dogs and could do very little to help when it happened but if it ever happens again I now have my stick and a free arm and the owner would have plenty to complain about.
I detest people who do not keep their dogs under control.
They would not get a penny from me just plenty of home truths.
And my dog would not be muzzled. She has to be able to help defend herself.
End of.

Kinski

I'm another one that wouldn't pay a penny to the collies owner, it's the owners inability to control the dog that resulted in it getting hurt, I'm not sure about this but if you pay any of the vets fees would you not be admitting liability that your dogs were to blame for what happened. With a bit of luck it might be a wake up call for them and they might just start walking the dog on a lead.

southcoastrgi

I don't have a dog just two cats, but i agree with the others i wouldn't pay anything

JencParker

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

so it should be muzzled incase the CPS decides to prosecute the wrong owner is pretty much what your saying.


how will a muzzle protect the dogs from other dogs actions?


the whole point of the dog not being muzzled is when a dog attacks it CAN defend it self and DO damage to the attacking dog or do dogs not have a basic right to defend itself?

They don't have the right to do the damage these two dogs appear have done. A dog bouncing up to another may well deserve a telling off, but not damage, so yes, I would recommend these dogs are muzzled. The fact they are littermates does add to the problem.

My dogs will tell off other rude dogs, but none have every left so much as a scratch on another dog.