Dangerous dogs act

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Becky Filby — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:27:18 GMT

[quote user="Rachael Winder"]

[/quote]

One of my colleagues had a similar experience recently. He was called late at night to a husky x that had bitten at least one person and was currently barricaded in a kitchen. The dog apparently did not belong to the owners of the house, it had supposedly been 'abandoned in this person's garden as she was known to take in strays' and after letting it in it had become aggressive and bitten her partner. The house was in a particularly dodgy area and my colleague had no assistance but the police seemed reluctant to help. They did grudgingly send a car to meet him but when they arrived it was clear that the owner of the house had been drinking, there was a party in progress opposite and all the neighbours decided to come, beer in hand, to offer advice. When they entered the house the owner had managed to lure the dog into one of her cages using sausages but the dog had to be sedated to check for a chip and move it. After a near miss the dog was injected and the vet turned to the police to suggest giving the sedative chance to work only to find they had left via the back door and driven off, leaving him surrounded by drunk chavs telling him he'd 'better not be trying to kill the poor dog' and having to carry the dog out and take it back to the practice on his back seat praying the sedative didn't wear off. Needless to say he made it back to the practice in record time where the dog was found to be chipped and the actual owner later contacted.

Since then we have recently acquired a Masterject jab stick with a 5 foot handle which is proving invaluable. We are a mixed practice that also covers some zoo work and the stick was mainly bought for Yaks/Camels etc and the occasional aggressive cow. However it has now been used twice on particularly aggressive dogs with great success. The needle size can be adjusted but cannot go very fine and it does inject with some force, so definitely only using it as a last resort, but worked a treat with a 65kg Mastiff that was barricaded in the owner's kitchen after getting it's head stuck in one of the plastic trays for raising feed bowls, panicking and becoming too aggressive for even the owner to approach.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Martin Jones — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:35:51 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Better, and have done it many times, is 2ml of succinyl choline injected where and if you can followed by I/V pentobarb.

[/quote]

Similar experiences - but not for some time now - although I found that if they started to tremor, the time spent with i/v often made things a little worse. I used to go intracardiac with the pentobarb, and found that it was a very safe and humane way of doing the deed. I remember having a police dog handler on one end of a dog-catcher, with an absolute lunatic akita-type on the other, and the whole thing done in calm silence, in less than a minute. During the war......

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Tim Cheyne — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:46:27 GMT

Reading this thread makes me feel very, very relieved that I no longer deal with "small animals".

Out here I met only one Akita, then a new breed to me. As a puppy it was not exactly cuddly but the Lebanese owner assured me that he could train it. At the same time he heard that a local cattery had an abandoned half-cross wild cat that could not be handled and had chewed its way out of captivity several times. He asked if he could have it and, after suitable warnings and denials of responsibility, he was allowed to take it.

A year later I saw both animals, disdainfully suspicious of me but beautifully under control. Some people can do it, most people cannot.

Tim.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Mark Holmes — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:34:59 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Better, and have done it many times, is 2ml of succinyl choline injected where and if you can followed by I/V pentobarb[/quote]

My old boss used to put it in a sausage. The skin being good at containing and disguising the drug and it seems to work orally very effectively.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Bob Russell — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:40:29 GMT

One of my colleagues (a long time ago) sprayed large animal immobilon into the eye of a very dangerous dog. Even the thought of that makes me reach for a change of underwear!!!!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Anthony Todd — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:51:44 GMT

[quote user="Rachael Winder"]" can you not just shoot it?"... [/quote]

So what happened; it's a difficult, if not impossible situation?

In a similar situation years ago before 'elf 'n safey I squirted prussic acid into the gaping jaws of a loose lethal female alsatian in an old horse box.

Better, and have done it many times, is 2ml of succinyl choline injected where and if you can followed by I/V pentobarb. Works within a couple of minutes and I pass it on having had a colleague have a lump of his cheek torn out whilst waiting for immobilon to work.... The owner let the rottie go once the injection had been given, not like the movies.....

Seems to work as quickly when sub/cut too.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Rachael Winder — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:39:52 GMT

The mention of the lack of general law enforcement knowledge wrt dog law made me think of a conversation I had with a police switchboard operator when on call. I was requested to attend a private residence to euthanase a known aggressive dog (coincidentally another Akita, though I have to say I generally have more problems with Rotties and GSDs)at 4am one Saturday morning, after said dog had put the owner's girlfriend in hospital and mauled the owner to an extent also. I asked whether a police dog handler would be on hand to help me/whether the dog was able to be muzzled etc. She replied " can you not just shoot it?"... I had to point out that this was Preston and not the Serengeti. At least it makes a change from the owners who think you will be able to examine their dog, which they can't even touch, as you have some sort of magical hypnosis powers conferred on you with your MRCVS...

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:08:49 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

We're seeing more and more spitz type dogs and their crosses as they seem to be becoming a fashion statement, Huskies and Malamuites especially but the idiots don't seem to have grasped that they can be difficult, willful dogs to train. We had a new (alleged) Akita pup in last week for vaccination, it was either a runt or the owner had been ripped off because it was the size I'd expect a Finnish Spitz to be at the same age and a lovely friendly submissive puppy. The owner said it wasn't a Japanese Akita, it was an American one which is apparently much smaller Whatever, I'm happier because it shouldn't grow into a 50kg ball of snarling muscle and fur. But its the scenarios illustrated earlier that show the dangerous dogs act is a load of rubbish in banning certain breeds rather than applying the law to individuals. Who in their right mind would breed a Rotty/Akita cross if their sole purpose wasn't to produce an aggressive dangerous dog?

[/quote]

The akita 'breed' has been split, I know its purely acedemic but they are slightly different.

the japanese akita is smaller and more like a big shiba inu to look at and will more commonly be red with a white face. They are apprently less of a problem with other dogs and more docile but I dont believe it. They certainly are more of a problem off lead as in they should never be allowed, they will run off and not come back.

The akita is also now known as the american akita and is usually larger and is the more common one that we see.

sadly over the last 25 years that I have known akitas they have been wholesale ruined. they have become much larger than they should be and the dog and people aggression problems have become worse. This I feel is simply due to irresponsible breeders producing dogs for the idiot market who buy one as a fashion statement and dont realise that they are extremely hard dogs to train so dont bother. Most that I have seen in my consult room have been horrible but sadly this is down to poor breeding and homing.

My last akita dies 3 months ago, he was a very placid boy. He was a problem with other dogs but living on dartmoor this isnt an issue and he was under control at all times. I could take blood from him on my own as he was so laid back and he loved people especially women!. he was diabetic secondary to the treatment for pemphigus. I do miss him as he was a very placid loveable companion who was a pleasure to be with.

They are very hard dogs to train and very willfull but if properly trained and from the right parents can be wonderful companions but unfortunately some dont understand this and see an akita puppy as a fluffy teddy bear and dont know what they are taking on. I have had several people asking about malemutes/akitas etc for their first dog and my general response is (politely) no don't do it, try something easier.

As with all breeds there are some that are horrible and should be dead and some that are very nice, I have come accross a lot of very nice rotties but also a lot of nasty ones. Its the breeding that needs to be controlled and hopefully this would sort the aggression problems but would probably be unworkable .

From the right breeders some akitas can be very nice dogs to own but unfortunately if you take a look at battersea there are a lot of akitas up for rehoming or more likely put to sleep before they get there due to the poor breeding for the idiot, status dog types.

Deed not breed, but I know its hard to get away from the fact that its usually the large breeds, on another point, I have been 'attacked' by more collies and JRTs than any other breed although I know they may not do as much damage". But of course I have come accross some very sweet ones!

I still worry when I see an akita or a rottie just because I know that the owner is not likely to have a clue what they have. It is nice to come accross a sensible owner occasionally with one of these breeds.

I completely agree with Martin that it is the individual that should be targeted not an entire breed which is a problem with the DDA.

On a more important note it is the Sarloos wolf dogs that are under the radar and they are a bit of a problem. We have had several in our practice and they are all adolesent but they become a real problem at 4 ish apparently and they can be a bit grumpy and have been known to nibble people in america. another status dog but the entire breed in this case is a problem and they are absolutely huge and they do concern me a great deal. They look like huge inuit types (which are a mess of a heniz 57 anyway) and most of the owners dont really know what they have, the last one was owned by a couple with a 2 year old child and they will be living with a wolf cross!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would say deed not breed but this breed does make me think.

Akitas arent always bad but I can understand why vets in general dislike them.

sort of a rant sorry.

Chris Jones

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:09:15 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]

[/quote]

I appreciate that there is sometimes a very real danger and 3 large potentially aggressive dogs breaking into your garden was probably frightening and not to be taken lightly. But I wonder if the reluctance of the police to act is the result of too many complaints of perceived risk that turn out to be innocent. In our village there's a guy who is reputed to be the local drugs dealer with 3 Rotties he lets run off the lead. Several people have reported this; certainly to the resident's association if not the police just because of the perceived danger and say they're too scared to go past them. In fact the dogs are harmless, as far as I'm aware they've never so much as growled at anyone - I run around the lanes regularly in very close proximity to them and they have never taken any notice of me, they're too busy sniffing the ground. This guy and his dogs have an unfounded reputation as far as the dogs go (and probably the drugs as well as far as I know). The only dogs that have ever attacked me while out running me were a pair of Tibetan Terriers!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

bob lehner — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:20:31 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]'m afraid I have little faith in the police when it comes to dangerous dogs[/quote]

I think you need to insist on speaking to the Dog Legislation Officer (DLO) in your local police force. They are probably the only police officers who really are familiar with the law and also understand dogs (they have usually served as a dog-handler). I have dealt with the Herts DLO, who was extremely helpful when I had a problem.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Julie Innes — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:01:37 GMT

The problem I find sometimes is in getting the police to believe that they have any powers in this situation! I went through a period where the local drug dealer was letting his dogs run freely around the woods at the back of my house. The three dogs in question were an Akita (huge), a rottie and a staffX- all running as a pack, and apparently intent on getting into my rabbit hutch- I heard them at night and came down in the morning to find the wood of the hutch chewed and the wire almost stoved in. Since then, they appeared in my garden no less than 4 times. I have 3 small children, who also like to hang out with the bunnies, so this wasn't really an ideal situation. The police apparently could do nothing, unless the dogs actually managed to bite one of us (!). I even printed out that bit of the DDA, but they then said that the guy said they couldn't have been his dogs and the police said I couldn't prove they were. One officer actually suggested I check the tag on their collars!! Another mentioned poison or barbed wire as an option, and when I enquired as to whether that was actually legal, she didn't know!

I'm afraid I have little faith in the police when it comes to dangerous dogs. I told them that if anybody was hurt by these marauding dogs, (they had already faced down my neighbour and his dog, to the point where he was unable to walk up the road, also reported) I would be onto the local press. Similarly I've had clients report dogs (funnily enough often akitas!) who attacked their dog viciously, and which the owners were completely unable to control, and they too have had poor response from the police. Very frustrating.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

bob lehner — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:28:15 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Where do we stand with a dog who I genuinely believe to be dangerous? [/quote]

The DEFRA website has a very extensive section on dangerous dogs and all the relevent legislation. It seems to me that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Section 3 (see below) covers the sort of situation you are concerned about - and it doesn't matter what breed of dog is involved.

Every police force should have a Dog Legislation Officer (DLO), who is specially trained in this area. I would contact him/her and explain your concerns - it is then upto the police to take any further action. At least you will have done something positive and salved your conscience in the event that the dog in question does go on to seriously injure someone.

With regard to client confidentiality, as per the Guide to Professional Conduct, you should tell the RCVS about your concerns - but where in your professional opinion there is a very genuine risk to public safety then I cannot really believe there would be a problem. After all it wouldn't look that great if the Daily Mail later ran a story about a dog which killed a child and the vet, who knew full-well that this dog was a potential killer, had done absolutely nothing about it, as he was worried about breaking client confidentiality. Of course you should also express your concerns about the animal to the owner - and advise them of the law.

With regard to handling this type of dog in the surgery you must surely also have a duty of care to your staff and if, as the responsible professional person, you have assessed the dog as a serious risk, then I guess you could be legally liable if your nurse was subsequently bitten.

Taken from DEFRA website:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA)

Prior to this legislation there were no criminal offences available to enforcers directly to protect people from injury, or fear of injury by dogs. Therefore it is vital to understand that the intention of Parliament was the protection of people. This Act is used to deal with the most serious incidents and generally it will be the police who instigate proceedings.

Section 1

Section 1 prohibits the ownership of certain types of dogs, unless they are exempted on the Index of Exempt Dogs, and was intended to have a preventative effect. Prosecutions can be brought before a Court based on just the physical characteristics of the do

(i.e. what it looks like). In anyincident dealing with a potential prohibited dog it may be worth contacting the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED) for advice and guidance at an early stage on 07000 783651 or 07721 036354

Section 3

Section 3 creates a criminal offence of allowing

any dog (i.e. of any breed or type) to be dangerously out of control in a public place or a place to where it is not allowed. A dog can be regarded as being dangerously out of control on any occasion where it causes fear or apprehension to a person that it may injure them. Furthermore, if that dog does injure a person then the offence is aggravated. Legal action may be taken against the owner and/or the person in charge of the dog at the time.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Anthony Todd — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:44:26 GMT

Good on you, Mark. common sense and social responsibility by someone at last!!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Mark Holmes — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:58:22 GMT

Well I thought Sod the college. The fact that in ten years it's the only dog I have felt the need to report must stand for something and I would rather defend my actions than my inactions if necessary! I am reasonably good friends with a plod so had a chat with her!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Anthony Todd — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:11:41 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]aggressive dangerous dog?[/quote]

What is the difference morally and legally between the examples, of which we are all familiar, quoted above and a "middle class middle aged person who presents carrying a large hand gun which they assure you has the safety on and with which they state they are fully familiar?

In this case wouldn't anyone call the police?

Where would you stand [or feel] if the animal brutally attacked a child outside the surgery door?

But don't worry, the College would judge the case on it's merits so that's all right then!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:22:02 GMT

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:04:57 GMT

I do wonder what is going through the heads of some of the people at the RCVS.

It might be legal, try it and see if you are prosecuted and convicted? Seems broadly similar to me.

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Rob Reid — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:01:16 GMT

We have had several aggressive Akitas or Akita Xs - I find they are the worst of the lot, Akitas seem to have a very independent thought process and are particularly unresponsive to training. Fortunately my boss took the decision a couple of years ago to stop seeing all Akitas - ones who were still registered could continue to come but we have not taken on any new Akitas since, no exceptions. Last one was (sadly?) PTS a couple of months ago so we are now an Akita-free zone !!

I am with Martin in that life is too short - how much do you value your health/livelihood? I guess your only ethical dilema is whether your conscience
can (a) live with the fact that the dog may seriously injure a child or (b) take that dog going to another practice and potentially injuring another vet/nurse etc... Do you know a co-operative RSPCA or police inspector as they tend to be of more help in these situations....

Mark - you practice in Aberdeen don't you? I take it this client is from Northfield or such like and is not registered at your Westhill branch, otherwise I will have to tell my folks to watch out whenever they do their shopping!!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:58:20 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]You could always contact the RCVS for advice[/quote]

Have done. Response = " You need to decide what to do, Should there be a complaint made against you we will look at the evidence and decide if you were justified in your decision" end quote!

[/quote]

Is this a surprise?

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:38:42 GMT

Life is too short for this aggro, write to them and tell them that they are no longer clients of the practice. I've had this situation on more than one occasion and that is what I've done. I don't mind a bit of a fight and a behavioural challenge but I'm not prepared to be injured or put my staff at risk or even the owner at risk from injury from their own dog on my premises for that matter. One occasion was with a cross Akita-Samoyed that put a nurse in hospital when we tried to muzzle it with the owners looking on after they refused or were incapable of muzzling the dog, they were in denial that there was a problem, and refused to go for behavioural therapy. They turned up at another vets whom they told when asked if the dog was aggressive that it wasn't and it put their nurse in hospital as well. That is unforgivable. They weren't the yob types depicted in the above posts they were middle aged, middle class, otherwise responsible people.These clients should be the ones going for behavioural counselling not the dogs!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Mark Holmes — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:57:19 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]You could always contact the RCVS for advice[/quote]

Have done. Response = " You need to decide what to do, Should there be a complaint made against you we will look at the evidence and decide if you were justified in your decision" end quote!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:42:37 GMT

You could always contact the RCVS for advice!

Re: Dangerous dogs act

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:40:47 GMT

I had a very aggressive rottie a few years back brought in by a group of teenagers who thought it was quite amusing to allow the dog to lunge at me and the nurse in the consultation room.

They did not find it so funny to be escorted out of the practice in front of a full waiting room with clear instructions not to bring the dog back until they could control it and they had done some growing up and could take responsibility for the safety of others around the dog.

(It had an itchy bum so probably impacted anal gls - needless to say I did not empty the glands and they paid for the consultation!!!!!!)