BHS Acces Officer attacked by dog.

L

lamlyn2012

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 November 2008
Messages
968
Visit site
A BHS Access Officer has been attacked by a Dog in Blackpool and has suffered six broken ribs and a punctured lung. There is also the case of the two police officers and police horses attacked in Essex last week. This is awful!! The BHS sre collecting statistics on dog attacks but when are they going to do something proactive. There has been a number of horses actually killed. Hope a rider isn't killed but stats are looking pretty bad. Do dog owners have to have liability insurance as horse owners do?
 
Yes, under the Animals Act 1971 all animal owners and keepers are strictly liable. If this attack took place on public land then the DDA would also come into play. If the access officer was on private land this does not apply - only liability.

I do hope that the access officer makes a good and speedy recovery.

I also hope that this isn't going to lead to a spate of hysterical people posting about how ALL dogs are evil... Given the huge number of dogs that there are in this country it does not take a statistical genius to realise that these attacks are dreadful exceptions to the rule that the majority of dogs are fine.

ETA - have just re-read your post - no one actually has to have liability insurance for their animals, it's just generally a good idea!
 
And the trouble is with no liability insurace they often can't pay a claim made against them so the innocent victim looses.........
 
[ QUOTE ]



I also hope that this isn't going to lead to a spate of hysterical people posting about how ALL dogs are evil... Given the huge number of dogs that there are in this country it does not take a statistical genius to realise that these attacks are dreadful exceptions to the rule that the majority of dogs are fine.

ETA - have just re-read your post - no one actually has to have liability insurance for their animals, it's just generally a good idea!

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saying all dogs are evil but the exceptions to the rule are much too frequent when you look at dog attacks on humans and other animals including domestic and farm. And for farmers it is their living in jeopardy.
The majority of humans are fine and within the law but the exceptons have to be dealt with and sometimes we all suffer for the actions of those few.
 
I've already had my say about this subject. It is getting worse and when you read a story about an attack it very often says that the owner did not try to get the dog under control, or the owner was no where to be seen. Some people are using dogs as weapons as opposed to pets which is really sad.
 
entirely the fault of the dog owners - unless they are competent and have trained working dogs i.e gun dogs/sheep dogs that respond to command, domestic pets should be on a lead. sorry - thats the only way attacks will stop

was barked at yesterday by little terrier that shut up when it got nearer the horses, then it spotted a walker and went barking after her - we were all on a bridleway except the owner who was t'other side of field shouting "Get Here, Get Here now" - which of course said dog ignored.
 
[ QUOTE ]
entirely the fault of the dog owners - unless they are competent and have trained working dogs i.e gun dogs/sheep dogs that respond to command, domestic pets should be on a lead. sorry - thats the only way attacks will stop


Well said, my sentiments entirely.
People with dogs need to understand that other people are entitled to freedom as wll as their b***** dogs. It would be interesting to know just how many have public liabilty insurance. Not many I bet. If it was made compulsary it might make people more responsible for their actions. All dogs have the potential to bite.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yawn

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been 3 people and two horses injured in the last week all doing jobs to help the community ( and that includes you) and you think this is boring! Well done for your complete lack of integrity.
 
[ QUOTE ]
entirely the fault of the dog owners - unless they are competent and have trained working dogs i.e gun dogs/sheep dogs that respond to command, domestic pets should be on a lead. sorry - thats the only way attacks will stop


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is the fault of the owners, but why should all dogs be kept on a lead because some are not properly trained? That is punishing the dogs, who need free-range execies. It's like saying horses should not be allowed on the road because a few kick out at passing cars.
 
Because a lot of owners have an over inflated view of how well trained their dog is, either that or they have tunnel vision above all else. An owner with a dog on the lead is more likely to clean up its crap.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No-one minds well behaved dogs, but non dog owners are mightily cross about undisciplined dogs that cause havoc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dog owners are also "mightily cross about undisciplined dogs that cause havoc"

My dogs are never off lead away from my own paddocks.
 
Change the record mal.

Yes, sometimes, rarely, dogs are out of control. Generally the kind of people who allow their dogs to run amok are not going to be influenced by legislation, judgements or other measures. That doesn't mean that every other dog owner in the country should be restricted or punished because of your very individual canine phobia
 
[ QUOTE ]
Change the record mal.

Yes, sometimes, rarely, dogs are out of control. Generally the kind of people who allow their dogs to run amok are not going to be influenced by legislation, judgements or other measures. That doesn't mean that every other dog owner in the country should be restricted or punished because of your very individual canine phobia

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I could post as eloquently as that MH
smile.gif


Apropos of very little, did you know there are 8 million dogs in the UK, acording the Pet Food Maunfacturers Association? http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-population-figures-.htm I think we'd have noticed if all of those were rampaging around the place, don't you think? The most recent data I can find on the number of prosecutions under the DDA is 1,193 in 2007, from a PQ answer http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090112/text/90112w0046.htm Now, I can't find a 2007 pet population figure, but sources seem to indicate that the population has ben fairly steady, so taking the two figures we do have that is, as I calculate it, approximately 0.015% of dogs in the UK are officially dangerous.

I still haven't seen these stats referred to in the OP, and I have asked very nicely twice now
frown.gif
I would very much like to see them. I do think it's quite rude to post referring to stats and then to not post them when asked nicely
frown.gif
 
i regually get very nasty or abusive comments from people when i am out with our dog as she is a siberian husky & very wolf like to look at, she is gentle, quiet, genrally comes to call (doesnt if scared she runs home) & fantastic with children.
Sorry but i will not muzzle her or restrict her from her natural bhaviour, animal welfare groups & the Law states (although more for livestock currently)
the Five freedoms for pets
1) Freedom from hunger and thirst
2) Freedom from discomfort
3) Freedom from pain, injury and disease
<font color="red"> 4) Freedom to express normal behaviour </font>
5) Freedom from fear and distress

as an animal designed to sprint to keep her on a lead at all times IS breaking one of these laws.
Sorry but that is my veiw.
feel free to find any more relevent/contradicting laws.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i regually get very nasty or abusive comments from people when i am out with our dog as she is a siberian husky &amp; very wolf like to look at, she is gentle, quiet, genrally comes to call (doesnt if scared she runs home) &amp; fantastic with children.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you will be happy and accept all responsibility when as you say "she gets scared and runs home" and ends up dead after being hit by a vehicle or someone is injured because the have had to swerve to avoid her.
 
actually i would.
we know she has issues with very large black dogs (with good reason) so as soon as we spot one we call her back &amp; keep her close to heel untill it has passed. she has only panicked twice in the 7 years we have had her, but because of this we have her insured so that in the event of an accident both her care &amp; any liability is covered (&amp; yes the insurers know her run home tendancy for big dogs &amp; are happy with our arangements).
do not assume all dog owners are irrisponsable!
 
Interesting your insurers are 'happy' to cover you &amp; your dog with full knowledge that you make no effort to control your dog in public. And that you &amp; said insurers are also happy to take full responsibility in event of the death or life changing injurey to a third party caused by your dog in event of a 'panic run for home' causing a RTA. Which insurance company is this?
 
Eeek. Sorry, one of my bitches has attempted to 'do a runner' home three times. As a result she stays on a lead when we are away from our own property or somewhere without a secure boundary. I couldn't live with myself if she caused an accident and we are working on her issues.

Speaking as a GSD owner, some people are already scared or loathesome of this breed - so they are always on a lead around people, livestock and other dogs (unless, in the latter case, they have been introduced, are friendly with each other and they have room on their own to run around with each other, well away from all of the above distractions)

This breed has a bad reputation due to the actions of bad owners, so I will do my bit to ensure people see my dogs well behaved, on a lead and not being a menace to anyone or anything.
 
firstly, the dog in question is always under full control (being on a lead doesnt mean it is) she is obedient and you are making assumptions that by allowing her to be off lead that she is not under control &amp; secondly we spent many hours tralwing insurers to ensure we (and she) got the best cover whilst still allownig her to have some freedom, we take a lot of precautions to ensure her welfare.
she is insured with E&amp;L insurance by the way &amp; they have been brilliant.
 
[ QUOTE ]
firstly, the dog in question is always under full control she is obedient and you are making assumptions that by allowing her to be off lead that she is not under control
she is insured with E&amp;L insurance by the way &amp; they have been brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already said OFF LEAD she is NOT under control and has paniced and "run home" several times. The fact you imply that you could not care less if she was injured or killed, or a human was injured or killed due to the fact she may in future during another "panic running off home" shows scant regard for animal welfare or human life. All you care about is that YOU are insured and therefore will not have to suffer the financial consequences of your actions.
 
i do not wish to get into a tit for tat arguement with you.
Twice (as i stated) &amp; several (you stated)are very different.
my insurance is there to ensure i can look after anyone/thing hurt in the event of an accident (they can happen even on a lead!) &amp; i still have to pay up to insure her (more on premiums as i have nevere claimed in 7 years)
feel free to have your opinoins on me &amp; my brood, those that know us (friends &amp; those that know us from sight) will have a much better opinion &amp; place to judge.
 
[ QUOTE ]
she has only panicked twice in the 7 years we have had her, but because of this we have her insured so that in the event of an accident both her care &amp; any liability is covered (&amp; yes the insurers know her run home tendancy for big dogs &amp; are happy with our arangements).


[/ QUOTE ]


I wonder if E &amp; L will be so happy to pay out in the event of a claim?!
Reading your post it sounds like you don't care if a third party is killed or injured. Your only concern seems to be that your insurance will cover YOU.
Please hae a look at this website. http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top