Here in Norway there is a new law around the corner that says, in brief, that dogs that "significantly hurts" people can be put down on the spot by anyone present. Needless to say, there is a vicious debate going on about it. As a matter of curiosity I'd like to hear what SP members have to say in the matter. Are there laws like that in your county? And if so, how do they work?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 15 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Putting down dogs that bite. (15 votes.)

Putting down dogs that bite. (Choose 1)
* Dogs that attack people should only be put down if the owner agrees. - 13% (2)
* Dogs that attack people should always be put down, by anyone nearby. - 27% (4)
* Dogs that attack people should always be put down, but only by police or other qualified peronnel. - 60% (9)

That seems a tad weird. A guy can stop by your house to say, borrow a CD. He notices your dog is particulary vicious (which, hypothetically, is the case here). So he kills it, and you can't pursue legal action against him. Odd.

=

I don´t think that is the idea of this particular law... If a dog attacks, of course anyone should have the right to shoot it to the Heaven of Bad Puppies without first needing to consult every damn lawyer. Besides, would you really sue someone because of that? (And not spank the hell out of him yourself?)

That seems a tad weird. A guy can stop by your house to say, borrow a CD. He notices your dog is particulary vicious (which, hypothetically, is the case here). So he kills it, and you can't pursue legal action against him. Odd. No. In the case you describe, the person would have provoked a situation where the dog attacked him. So, this law would not be applicable on the described case.

"significantly hurts" people. This means that a person has not only the duty to come to the rescue of someone attacked by the dog, the person would have now the additional right to put the dog down on the spot. (Which the person theoretically anyway had).

But I want that law too. Last year in Zürich, a dog attacked a woman on a bridge. The attacked woman fell into the river and drowend, because she couldn't swim. Whereas the woman who owned the dog, just walked away, as if nothing had happend. But she got caught 3 days later.

Actually, I think I just misinterpreted the first post. I thought it meant dogs (in general) that hurt people. But now I'm all cleared up.

Still, I wonder if this will be extended to other domesticated animals. Certainly wouldn't want to make people purchase very exotic/expensive animals as pets.

It basically works the same way in a lot of States in the US.

If you have a concealed permit, and a dog attacks you, you kill it. Right then, right there. Attacking, defined as within 20 feet, and growling/showing its teeth/barking/crouching. I forget the distance, to be honest; it may be more like 40 feet. The idea was a guy could throw a knife, rather than just stabbing or slashing with it. Whatever distance it was for a knife, will be the same distance for a dog; in my State, at least.

Now, if it's a poodle or something that you can just punt and get 5 or 6 yards on it, then obviously you just do that instead. But if it's a great dane, or a doberman, or some other kind of stray that's big enough to seriously hurt you, then it's justified (by law, at least).

It works different if you're in someone's house. But if you're just out walking around with your 3 year old girl, around the block, then there's not a whole lot of debate about it; even with a poodle. There will be a police report, which is reviewed by the county sherrif, but that's as far as it goes. As long as the round only hits the dog, that is. You have to pay damages if it passes through and hits someone's car. And then it goes to a whole other matter if you injure someone.

Which is just all the more reason to use hollowpoints and practice at the gun range...

Of course you are allowed to defend yourself, with or without that law. If the situation has cooled down though just anyone shouldnt be able to walk up and put down the dog. It should be reported to the police and they would take nescessary actions.

What bugs me in occasions like that is that it never is the dog's fault. It is the stupid owner that never should have had a dog in the first place. The dog should perhaps be put down but the owner should get assault and abuse charges laid against him just as if he had attacked the person the dog mauled himself.

Kill the dog. Instantly.
If a dog is attacking a person and I am capable of killing the dog I would do it, regardless of if I have the law on my side or not.

If a dog is attacking a person and I am capable of killing the dog I would do it, regardless of if I have the law on my side or not. I agree. But what if you don't actually see it happen, but hear about it afterwards? Do you think it would be OK to go out to find the dog, possibly seek it out at its owner's place, and kill it? Or should that be left to the authorities? What bothers a lot of people about this law isn't people killing dogs that are attacking people right in front of their eyes, but people seeking out dogs that have previously attacked people, or even are rumoured to have done so.

I can see people provoking the neighbour's dog and then using that as an excuse for killing it. Unless there is an attack in progress, then violent dogs who need to be put down should be dealt with using due process. In particular, if the animal is behind a tall fence, or securely chained, it should take a court order to get that animal killed.

A dog killed its owner, a woman only one mile away from my home two years ago. That dog wasn't even provoked by anyone, the woman was just walking the dog. The dog ripped its muzzle apart and killed woman.

I think that too aggressive dogs and dogs, that have attacked someone should be put down. Not by shooting, because putting down is much better method for both, the dog and people.

Personally I don't like dogs. I feel that if a person can't train their mutt to behave, then they should either be sent to obedience school or to the pound.

Two of my neighbors have rottweilers. One of them will only bark if it's owners are in danger, or if you tell it to "speak", he is also very friendly and can take walks without having to wear a lease. The other dog can't be trusted with a stranger without the owner in sight. Now which of these dogs do you think should be sent to the pound? Personally, I wouldn't mind if the second gets sent to the "glue factory"!!! :rolling:

Here in Malaysia, there is no such thing as dog pound. To deal with wild dogs problem, they just shoot them on the spot. It is a bit hard to get Muslims to catch these dogs because Muslims cannot touch them. i remember when i was in high school, we can hear gun shots every now and then and find blood stains in campus. My high school is rather big and so is the canteen which attracts the dog with left over.

Attack? They even kill them when they don't attack. Dogs are dirty animals for Muslim, and since Malaysia takes Islam as the federation's religion, they don't really care more or less about killing a dog. Also, i know some people who just love dog meat. In here, we don't need to wait until for a dog to attack in order to kill.

[ April 28, 2003, 06:47: Message edited by: teekc ]

In my opinion that law should be applied to humans. Even if I like dogs equally much or more, I'd apply the same law to them as well.

The poll is flawed though. You should give the extreme utopian animal-rights activists an opportunity to vote for: "Never kill a dog no matter what the circumstance!"

Well, here's a scenario for you to think about... What if someone, based on this law, accidentally, say, shoots a poilce dog becuse they mistake it for a "normal" dog that is attacking someone? Or kill a dog that is defending its owner against an assault? Or just overreaact. Someone walking onto a scene from behind a corner can never know what happened before. or something like that.

Anyone remember the movie Beethoven? Where the nasty vetenarian sprayed goop on his hand and the dog's face, faking a bite so that he could get the dog for animal experiments?

Wjat I am trying to say is that one can never be certain of what has happened, so immediate action is not always appropriate. Thus, my opinion is the third option.

(Trying to be coherent... for once)

Here in Queensland, Australia, we have something called 'scienter principle'. It means 'kept knowingly'. Basically it says that if we keep ANY animal that we know to be of 'ferae naturae' of a feral nature, and that animal harms in any way a person and they bring it to court, then the animal is put down. It is simple as that. However, there is some controversy as to the species of dogs that can be considered of a feral nature. Breeds like bull mastiffs and satffishire (spelling) terriors are considered to be feral, so are then put down, whereas a sausage dog would not be. There is also the added variable of aggrivation, and this can change the results.

@Cross
If I knew that a dog had attacked I consider it ok to seek it up and kill it.
Hearsay or rumors is not enough.

The dog races that are bred killers should not be kept as pet animals and I would feel no remorse for killing any of those. I'd be glad if those races were extinct. Whenever I see someone walking such a dog - which isn't often - I always think of that person as utter scum.
Yeah, can you tell I hate those dogs? :flaming:

Now I think you are racist Earl Grey. :p
As I said before, it is never the dogs fault. I know plenty of pit bull terriers that are the sweetest most loving dogs anyone could ever ask for and that wouldnt bite anyone for anytihng in the world. I also know of vicsious little lap dogs that would try to maul any little baby it can sink it fangs in. It all depends on what kind of owner the dog has and if they are really suitable to have a dog.

I would go with Joacqin. The dog is not the problem. The human is the problem. There are a lot of people who own dogs, which are just not suited for it. They are either overcharged with the dog or even worse, have serious antisocial tendencies. Specifically people who have a preference for certain dog races. But as long there's no system in place, to control the people who own dogs...

Ara, the police dogs are used in a specific directive in the US. The cops don't send the dog into a crowded building to get the gunman. Although, Texas has done that with their Federal Inmates in the past; I would tell you they got good results, but there are tree-huggers who would differ with me.

As for the dog protecting the owner, that's always a risk. Even police officers in plain-clothes have gotten either shot, or held at gunpoint, by just a joe-schmoe who stumbled onto the scene.

It's definately not a perfect system. I sweat it all the time.

To me, Arabwel has the right of it. Unless there is a truly life or death situation, due process should be used to determine whether or not a dog -- or any other animal -- belonging to someone else should be put down. Due process implying, of course, that the whole truth comes out and all factors are considered before a decision is made.

What ever happened to the "reasonable person" test? If a dog is an immediate danger to you or a member of your party, down it goes. However, if a dog attacks you or your child, and then before you get a bead on it, it runs away, you can't go on a hunt for it. That crosses the line of being a vigilante. So we are back to the "reasonable person" test, is the animal an immediate threat or not?

AJ,

Cross said:
Here in Norway there is a new law around the corner that says, in brief, that dogs that "significantly hurts" people can be put down on the spot by anyone present. and you said:

It basically works the same way in a lot of States in the US. As we live in the same state, I am curious, by state law, I don't believe that anyone has a right to "present" unless he or she, or an immediate family member are threatened with imminent harm. If you were walking down the street, and a complete stranger was being ripped to shreds by a dog, lion or tiger (I live near a place that has exotic animals, and I can hear them when I take the kids for a walk), technically I believe that you would have to call the authorities and attempt to stay out of harms way (in other words you can't put yourself into danger so that you can justify drawing your side arm). Is there an exception for animals that I am not aware of? :confused:

I am not trying to be hostile to you, I am just curious. ;) :cool:
Thanks!

EJ, what I mean is say, the dog is sent to chase someone outside (I think it's done... I recall seeing articles about training dogs to do just that) And then someone seeing the dog jump a person and bite their arm in a police-doggish fashion, you know what I mean, and think "Damn, that dog is attacking that guy!" because the cop whop's working with the dog is further away out of sight, seeing as he's not as fast as the dog is, and the poor dog gets whacked. Does that make any sense?

And I agree, there are some "killer" dogs that are rerally sweet, and then there are lapdogs who want to kill anything is sioght. Been there, done that, got bitten. :(

(*trots off to hug her uncle's mangy mutt*)

Arabwel, yes, police dogs are used in that fashion, at least in Norway. It only happens, though, when a criminal is fleeing the police and they release the dog so that it can run him down. But theoretically, it could happen like you said.

I don't know about other countries, but here, attacking a police dog is considered (in court) as "assaulting a police officer". This actually happened a few years ago; someone kicked a police dog badly, and was tried and sentenced to prison time for assaulting a police officer on duty.