- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


a dog attacked my sister's dog

April 22nd, 2006, 11:16 AM
I have a couple of questions for you all.

I just got a call from my sister. Yesterday her dog was attacked by another dog in front of her house. The dog was whining at the door, so she thought she had to go out, so she opened the door to take her to the backyard. She was not on leash, as she is fine to walk the 10 feet to the gate.

Instead, he went to the front of the house where a kid was screaming. A woman was walking a dog and she had a small child with her. The dog had aparently knocked the kid over and it was standing over it ready to attack it (it wasn't her dog aparently, it was her father's dog, so she didn't know it wasn't good with kids). My sisters dog is very protective of kids and started barking at the other dog. Then the other dog attacked her. She grabbed onto her jaw and wouldn't let go. It took 6 people to pull them apart.

My sister's dog is sorta ok. One tooth ripped out, and a puncture wound to the jaw. She had an xray, nothing broken, and she is on antibiotics.

This is what I am confused about. Animal control says the other dog was a pittbull, which means it should have been muzzled. That's aside from the point, since the new (stupid) law means any dog that is agressive should fall under it, am I right? Aparently though, they can't charge the dog or owner unless they charge my sister with not having her dog on a leash. They gave my sister the option. Does that sound right? Wouldn't the other dog automatically fall under the law, as a pittbull, and the owner be fined? Or does it not apply to dog on dog fights?

My sister was lucky to get almost free medical care for the dog since her neighbour works at a shelter and got it all done for free, she just paid for the meds. She doesn't have a reason to charge the other people, she just wants the agressive dog taken care of.

aparently the dog was trained to be a guard dog, and it's the second they have had this year so far, since the first one was already destroyed by animal services after another fight. The women who had the dog was borrowing it from her father since the father of her child just got out of jail and she wanted it to protect her. It had also been trained to attack GSDs (police dogs) specifically, and my sis's dog is a GSD cross.

Any ideas? Thoughts?

April 22nd, 2006, 11:48 AM
Was the other dog on leash? did your sister's dog run off the property to go to the other dog? if so your sisters dog could also be labeled as a dangerous dog for instigating the attack. Just because the other dog won the fight does not necessarily make it the aggressive one, it may have viewed the situation as your sister dogs was attacking it so it defended itself. A/C decides whether to lay charges based on the circumstances, and in this case it sounds like they did not charge because sisters dog was not under control at the time had it been, the fight might not likely have occured and for them to say her dog would have to be charged with being offleash, her dog must have left the property and entered onto city(in could have been in the front yard but a certain number of feet from the center of the road is deemed city property) or on another persons property at the time of the fight.

April 22nd, 2006, 12:49 PM
I was kinda thinking that too. Aparently the other dog was off leash as well though, and was possibly attacking the child, but my sister didn't see. And it happened on the lawn of where my sis lives, so I don't know if that is still considered on the property where she lives and whether leash laws apply there or not.

The other dog attacked my sis's dog when she showed up, however, even if she had been on leash, the other dog may or may have not run at her. There is no way to know.

At least my sister has learned that she will now put her dog on a leash always, even if only to walk the ten feet to the backyard fence.

April 22nd, 2006, 03:20 PM
You know personally I think this women is better off - taking a self defense course or something - I personally dont believe in dogs for personal protection.

Also her father should have told her the dog wasnt good with kids. If anyone were ever to walk Joey I would tell them hes not good with other dogs just so they know.

Also it looks like her dog was actually a hero in a way as she distracted the other dog. Sucks that she got hurt though.

April 22nd, 2006, 04:10 PM
If it happened on her property, then I don't see why she should have had to have her dog on a leash.
Also, I can't believe that the pit would be trained to attack GSD/police dogs and the police don't have a problem with that. Sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I'd press charges and take my chances with the leash fine, personally. Although, this may result in the pit being pts... I'm actually not sure that that is a bad thing, unfortunately in this case.

April 23rd, 2006, 12:04 AM
Here in Qc (in a lot of municipalities), if your dog is in the back yard, or in a fenced yard, it can be off-leash, but dogs in the front yard must be leashed... Not sure whereabouts on her property the dog was, but maybe she should check with the bylaws of her town first..

April 23rd, 2006, 02:06 AM
Also approx 30' from the center of the road is technically considered city property, this allows the city the right to widen the road in the future if necessary, and as I almost found out the hard way it is illegal to remove trees within that distance from the center of the road even though it is in my front yard without city permission, luckily the city was cutting down the trees due to wood bores so all I got was a lecture and not a fine for having chopped down one tree :o

April 24th, 2006, 03:28 AM
Something’s missing.

A dog standing over a child ready to attack? The child that the dog was walking with. Not yet a red flag as a friendly dog that is overly excited may knock a child over. A child falling on the ground may scream. Your sister’s dog while caring for children may have been misreading the situation – it’s not unheard of. The dog then misreading your sister's dog (or reading it 100%) is also not unheard of. It may of felt threatened or worried about the safety of it's charges.

This is all still in the grey area and it may of been to Animal Control also. However if the dog was violating the DOLA act then they would be required to act so I am surprised your sister said that it was Animal Control whom described the dog as a pit bull. Still I know that many municiaplities are not enforcing this law as written but rather using it to supplement any actions against a dangerous pit bull beyond what they can do for a dangerous dog . Generally I commend them for that. Your sister's story has a lot of grey area.

“Pit Bull on Dog” (actually any domesticated animal) attacks are covered by the law…even if a GSD ran up and attacked a leashed and muzzled pit bull and ripped the muzzle off. The Kitchener Humane Society was very clear on this point at the Bill 132 hearings as they recommended that the law be modified to protect pit bull victims of attacks by other dogs from being destroyed simply for defending themselves. They were ignored.

The family that owned the dog recently had one destroyed for being aggressive. Red Flag one. They quickly replaced it. Red Flag two but not crazy. My uncle had his second Springer Spaniel destroyed as that dog (and it’s litter mates) were just nuts (bad breeding). It was destroyed before it harmed one of my cousins. He then got his third very shortly after.

Back to your story. The dog is trained to attack GSD. A hundred red flags. Way beyond scary. I'm sorry. Did I hear that right? Trained to attack police dogs. I could only assume that any police officer coming to the home with a dog is doing so legally so that would imply that the dog would be protecting some illegal enterprise. What kind of nut trains a dog to attack a police dog? A criminal that's who!!! A cop deserves to come home at the end of the day and so does his dog.

If that statement is anything but rumour the dog should be destroyed and the family banned from owing dogs. If that statement was offered up by the girl then it certainly should have been investigated. If that statement were made to Animal Control they should of seized it on the spot.

I certainly feel though that the first dog irregardless of the breed should have been leashed. Yours sister’s dog also just for it’s own safety even if it’s not legally required to. As you said she has learned her lesson.

I leash both mine up in order to walk them to the back yard as we do have dogs that run loose around here and I have stepped out of my side door to find a strange dog on my lawn.

If your sister believes that this dog is a pit bull AND if your sister believes that this dog is trained to attack police dogs then it is very simple. The next time the dog is walked without a muzzle your sister can call animal control and state that she knows a pit bull is being walked without a muzzle. She is not reporting the dog for attacking her dog that was yesterday. Today an unmuzzled pit bull is being walked in public. It’s a new day and a new violation of the law. If animal control believed it was a pit bull she was most certainly warned.

However and let’s be clear here: If that statement regarding attacking police dogs is nothing other than nieghbourhood rumour your sister is condemning an innocent dog that may have been protecting it’s young charge from an attack by your sister’s dog to death. Unless the woman spoke these words directly to your sister then I would back off.

Also bear in mind that while one potentially dangerous dog has been removed from society that the idiot that trained it is free to go out and get another one. Also bear in mind 'how do you train a dog to attack GSD? The answer is pretty sick.