Ah - forget that! lol
Just re-read it and the owner was prosecuted under the 1871 Dogs Act, not the DDA.

Still, that means the cat's owner might have had to pursue this privately as a civil matter. It's usually very difficult for people whose animals have been attacked by dogs to get the police to take it seriously and many don't even know the 1871 Act covers this.

Sorry for the added post but this is rather interesting - apparently the Dogs Act 1871 was repealed in Scotland in 2010, and replaced by the Dangerous Dogs Act with amendments, the latter including attacks on other animals and incidents on private land.

So either this attack took place before the new law came into force, or the journalist has got it wrong.

Either way it does tend to indicate the shape of things to come when the amendment covers the rest of the UK.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/9/section/1

Scotland: Dangerous Dog Act, March 2010 Amendment of the law A dog Control Noctice: OCN
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Ju...w/control-dogs

The dog should not be destroyed, maybe, and I mean maybe the owners should receive a OCN, dogs chase cats, it is as simple as that! We humans should help our dogs and teach them to chase a ball instead.

The problem is, no court is acting responsible and acting within the law....if they don't like dogs or the breed then they are free to act and judge whatever way they want and interpetate the laws anyway they like!!

The dogs are the victims.....AGAIN!

Agree entirely.

I agree I think there must be more to the story. My Danny killed a cat last year and there was no order for him to be put down. Not even a control order. It was however his first offence.
It's very sad as I know it's the instinct of many dogs. But I'm guessing there must have been previous. I'm just hoping it's not because he's a staffie

I too think there may be more to this.

Honestly guys there is no more to the story this dog lives, or lived, about 10 minutes from my front door I know several people who know the dogs owner personally.(yes ok they being friends with the family will obviously taint there version of events) I have met with the gentleman , Ian, who went to the High Court to speak on behalf of the owner and the dog (he is a well respected champion for rescue dogs and for providing owners with behaviour advice etc to prevent their pet becoming a rescue stat)and to offer a free behaviouralist for the rest of Cjays life to help with ANY training issues that she witnessed, she could not say if there were any as she at this point has not met the owner with Cjay. It was also put to the appeal court that Cjay be muzzled and on lead at all times in public.
Cjay escaped from the garden once before and was found in the street (no attacks, no cat, no vicious behaviour) He was reunited with his owner and she was advised to keep him under control as he was breed that could be considered dangerous and he was out of control (wandering) in public.
No further reports until this one a visitor to the home left and left the gate open (yes the owner should have checked the gate was secure yes she is at fault for this) Cjay was out in garden saw his escape route and off he went. He saw and chased the neighbours cat and was found with the cat in his mouth. Cjay had sustained serious injuries to his eye and face and the cat in cjays mouth was obviously injured. The cat(not that this is any excuse at all) was known to frwequently visit Cjays garden and the gardens of other dog owners in the area and sit just out of rerach hissing and spitting, yes I know cats do this, I have seen my own do it yet she gets on famously with Ben.
I do not know the situation about whether the cat owner, rightly asked for vets bill payment and this was refused hence the courts being involved or if the neighbour reported the attack. I will ask though and find out.
The local court here ruled that Cjay was a dnagerous dog and an unpredictable animal who could be a danger to the public and other animals and therefore had to be destroyed.
An appeal was launched at the high court which was heard yesterday and the appeal judge upheld original decision.
OInce again a dog sentenced to death because it could do something. Yes I know the cats owner must have been totally distressed and it would have been traumatic for the cat but the cat is fine, it is back patrollong gardens (including those with dogs including Cjays).
Ben loves our cat BUT he will chase other cats yes he stops and comes back on recall but If he ever got out or ran away and didnt come back I couldnt categorically say he would not injurre or kill a cat.

It does seem overkill, especially as the cat is actually ok now, and sadly dogs will chase cats as we all know. I suspect the issue is more of "owner not controlling potentially problem dog" than anything else, but we can't know for sure, I guess.

Sad situation.

Wys
x

Obviously fuller accounts from friends on either side might be biased but it does seem that the relevant bit is that this owner had been in trouble before and did not do enough to ensure that her dog could not get out again.

If she lived where I live in Cyprus where dogs can be put down for any old reason (sometimes the same day) she would have taken EVERY precaution after getting a first warning. Even for the most innocuous dog you are supposed to put a 'Beware of the Dog' notice outside your house too. And pay to register them with the local Municipality (even tho they are microchipped etc) and state on the registration form what training or trainer you used!

I suppose what I am saying is this - if you fear the consequences of falling foul of the 'dog laws' whatever they are enough - you will make absolutely sure you comply with them.

I doubt this lady could have envisaged that her dog would be PTS for attacking a cat (I am very surprised the cat was not killed) if she was aware of that I am sure she would have redoubled her efforts. You cannot rely on other people to close your gate to keep the dog in - it could be left open by all sorts of people, not just visitors.

If all that was in place to stop the dog getting out onto the streets was a garden gate that could be opened or left open by anyone - to me that doesn't seem enough. I wouldn't rely on that even if just to stop a placid and friendly dog getting out just in case it was stolen or run over.

Sad story really for all concerned. I agree the facts are not probably all covered - how did it get to court in the first place if the cat owner was not 'blaming' the dog owner?

I am not sure what world you live in, but I welcome seeing your training programme designed to prevent dogs chasing and attacking cats, as I am sure all owners, trainers and behaviourists would.

A dog can live quite happily with cats but kill ones that do not belong to his household.

5 of my 6 dogs have killed cats, 3 of those dogs were extremely well socialised, one is a PAT dog and a stooge dog for rescue and all were trained never to chase livestock.

If a cat came into my garden I do not fancy its chances of getting out again, fortunately (for the cat and me) this has yet to happen.

As for the assertion that the court is not acting within the law, I look forward to the appeal and the prosecution of the judge for its actions.