Bitten by my neighbours dog.

[Amaya23]

Hi, so this is my first time posting but could really do with some advice. I was walking home yesterday late at night (about 11pm), I live on a small cul-de-sac and has just turned the corner when I saw my neighbour with his dog off the lead. I was walking along the pavement towards my house when the dog comes running up to me, growling. It then bit me hard on the shin.

I was very surprised and taken aback as I was really not expecting it. Realising what happened he called the dogs name, but it jumped up at me again, I was carrying a bag, so I used it to shield my legs. He then came over and grabbed the dog and walked away, saying nothing. I was very shocked and my leg was hurting so I just quickly walked home.

I was wearing jeans and the dog is small so the bite did not break my skin but the area is very bruised and swollen. Had I been wearing shorts or thinner trousers it would definitely have broken the skin.

I really don't know what to do about this. I've had issues with this neighbour in the past so really don't want to rock the boat but I'm concerned that next time it could be a child just walking along. Any advice is much appreciated. X

Report to the police. Get the man prosecuted and the dog destroyed.

What... so if someone trips over a dog and it nips them out of shock/pain - destroyed.

A puppy mouths someone, breaking the skin a bit because puppy teeth are very sharp - destroyed.

A dog goes for the ball and catches someones hand, breaking the skin - destroyed.

The law is the way it is because dog bites vary, the reasons why they happen are myriad, and we examine the details and respond accordingly.

Also do you have any idea how much it costs to seize and hold dogs whilst waiting for court?

What would help is if police across the country had a unified response to dog bite complaints, sadly it varies massively and in some areas people are fobbed off and action not taken when it should be, particularly where there is another dog involved and the incident goes down as 'dog on dog' rather than 'dog out of control, dangerous to humans'.

As I say, police can seize a dog there and then if they've good reason to do so - ie, the bite is level 3 or above (the OP's bite sounds like a level 2) - if the dog is an illegal breed or suspected of being one - if the owners have had previous complaints made about this or any dog - if the police suspect the owner will not heed a warning and the dog will be permitted to run off lead in public again (more likely if the dog is large, less likely if we're discussing a chihuahua) - if the dog exhibits dangerous behaviour toward them when they visit and the owner is clearly unable or unwilling to manage that...

But seizing dogs costs money, so it is done where necessary, not for every single dog-tooth-on-human incident, and to a certain degree will boil down to an officers personal opinion on visiting the dog and owner.

Well, yes. I don’t care about the circumstances (other than a guard dog or police dog biting a wrongdoer, which isn’t an example you gave).

All this ‘level’ stuff just suggests the process has been captured by dog lovers and the RSPCA. The law and procedure should work that a dog that’s bitten someone is put down very quickly. It’s pretty simple really.

As for illegal breeds, they should just be taken away on suspicion, assessed straightaway and despatched or returned as necessary. Any doubts should be resolved with a presumption in favour of the dog being classed as banned.

Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to demand a dog is destroyed and it actually happen.
I would still report to the police in case it does happen to someone else so they have a history.

But destroying any dog who's ever bitten would be akin to everyone who hits someone in any way getting life imprisonment without acknowledging that there's a wide range of reasons, severity and outcomes.

It wouldn’t be like that. Because there’s no equivalence or useful comparison between dogs and people.

Report to the police. This dog is clearly dangerous and shouldn't have been off a lead. The owner should have apologised and asked if you were OK. Take a photo of the bite mark for the police.

If the skin was broken, you would need a tetanus jab. I don't think the GP will be able to do anything about bruising though. Arnica cream is excellent for bruising, it quickly reduces swelling, you can buy it at pharmacists.

You are posting about YOU think should happen rather than what you know.

I wonder if he knows his dog is snappy and that’s why he lets it out so late at night?

Hello, thank you everyone for your replies. I have reported the incident and the police have said they will be back in touch. My bite is definitely a Level 2 bite. I love animals and have two cats and have many friends with dogs, but obviously the dog that bit me has not been properly trained or socialised. Yes, I think that's why he takes it out late at night. I don't feel the dog should be destroyed but I do feel perhaps some restrictions should be applied, like keeping it on a lead at all times when out and about as you just never know. Thank you all for your responses. Xx

"The law and procedure should work that a dog that’s bitten someone is put down very quickly. It’s pretty simple really."

Except the law doesn't and shouldn't work like that because in many cases it isn't "pretty simple."

I'm a retired dog behaviourist and obedience trainer. Years ago, a dog belonging to one of my customers was accused of biting a relief postman. I knew the dog extremely well, he attended my classes from puppy classes to advanced level; and his owner brought him back for a refresher course every year because both she and the dog enjoyed the classes. He was a lovely gentle, placid creature and never once caused me any concerns regarding his temperament. Infact, it was at my suggestion that the owner apply to have him become a registered Pets As Therapy (PAT) dog. He passed the stringent temperament tests and was one of only two members of his breed to be a PAT dog at that time in the UK.
So back to the postman. He was found by a neighbour lying in the street with what looked like gravel-graze injuries. There were no puncture wounds, no torn flesh, no bruising to indicate what the postman described to the police as a vicious and sustained attack. By an 11 stone Rottweiler.
Now, anyone who knows anything about this breed knows that the described attack would have put that man in hospital for months, assuming he survived.

The CPS, however, took the 'it's pretty simple really" line and the case went to court. I and another expert witness both gave evidence as to the dog's behaviour and character; whilst the owner presented to the court written testimonies given by attendees at my classes, neighbours, the local publican etc etc.

That dog could quite easily have been needlessly destroyed had the magistrates thought like you. Thank God they didn't.

The postman's version of events didn't stand up to cross examination, his "injuries" made no sense, he changed his account several times and the magistrates were having none of it. He was a liar.
Case dismissed.

This is all very well but - off topic - I don’t think people should be allowed to own 11st dogs that can kill people, even if this one didn’t kill or injure, apparently.

Rottweilers make several appearances on the list of fatal dog attacks. So my view is hardly extreme.

The difference between this dog and the few that have attacked is that this dog was well socialised, well trained, well exercised and generally well cared for. Idiots who buy Rottweilers (as they did predominantly in the 80s and 90s) who don't socialise, train or exercise them; and/or keep them in isolated and inappropriate living conditions produce aggressive dogs. This is true of most of the larger breeds. This is why the law was changed so that the owner is held accountable in law for their dog's behaviour; and if the offence warrants it, the owner will be imprisoned, quite rightly. Personally, I would like to see longer prison sentences for these "hard men" who buy and deliberately raise a dog to be a "weapon".

The Rottweiler isn't on the list of banned breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act, the reason being several cases out of thousands of Rottweilers doesn't qualify the breed as being dangerous per se, only in the wrong hands.

The XL Bully, on the other hand, is an intrinsically dangerous breed, (the fatality stats speak for themselves) and I fully supported the campaign to have it banned, a position I still hold.

Most Rottweilers btw don't weigh 11 stones, most males weigh in at 9.5 stone max. This particular dog was heavier because of a fondness for food and being so laid back he preferred to walk, not run. Ironically, the dog's weight allowed me to punch a big hole in the postman's account that the dog cleared a tall locked gate to attack him and then leapt back over the same gate into his yard afterwards. As I pointed out to the magistrates, this would have required a dog to have a muscular and athletic build whereas the pear-shaped Rottweiler we were talking about would have struggled to leap over a small coffee table, assuming you could persuade him to do so. There was nothing "allegedly" about it. The dog was innocent. Three months later, the postman was imprisoned for stealing mail. Scratch a liar, you'll find a thief.