> No-one is right or wrong on this post, it is each of our own thoughts on the subject.

Totally agree :)

That's why topics such as these are good for everyone (IMO), sharing ones own views and hearing different views can help broaden our minds/oppinions/thoughts, as it can shed light on view points one may have over looked/not considered beforehand.

For instance, my initial reaction was that a taser was a OTT approach, I now see that it was the best approach available at the time :(

Fair enough.
I never said no one should have an opinion. I just pointed out people were not simply stating an opinion, they had whole stories made up based on VERY little information being published. Non dog people do this and there is a rage about certain dog breeds in the media getting a bad name. We shouldn't be doing that here with the people involved.  THAT is my opinion.

I think stories like this are posted on here both for discussion and to point out yet another case of the media jumping on a story and creating panic which then in turn causes public fear of dogs who do not deserve it. Like has been said in many posts before....how many times do JRs, Collies, Yorkies etc bite and yet they are not demonised in the press. Discuss that, not how bad she was because she wouldn't or couldn't catch her dog after an apparently bad bite on the leg by a dog known to have a strong bite (my opinion due to jaw strength a bully breed, does not need to bite hard to cause a lot of damage)...or how badly the police handled it. They tazed the dog which gave the owner a chance to say what the story was before putting the dog down.

I did not single anyone or any post out. I WAS posting my opinion...If you live by what you say your post is a bit  of a contradiction.

Cheers

"Surely 2 officers per county could respond to dangerous dog call-outs, fully equiped, trained and ready to deal efficiently with the incident."
Do you mean two full time employees in total, or two on duty at any given time.
If you meant two on duty at any given time, that would mean the employment of at least ten officers. This is calculated by needing to cover three shifts per day - a total of six officers per day. As no officers work 7 days a week, and officers take leave, get sick etc, this explains why no less than ten would be required. As they would have to be available for call outs, they could presumably not undertake other duties. Now if those officers were paid a salary of maybe £25,000 p.a.  and there were ten of them that would cost the county £2,500,000 per year. Now I am not sure exactly how many vicious dog incidents there are per county per year, but I'd be willing to bet its less than one per week. IF we guess at maybe fifty incidents, that makes a grand total of fifty thousand pounds per incident. Thats a very high cost per incident! ( personally I would not consider that a justifiable cost).
Now if you actually meant two full time employees, then I can assure you that two would not be enough to cover a twenty four hour period. Each officer would have to do a twenty four hour on call shift, and therefore the following day would be covered by the other officer. That makes a "one in two" on call rota. In the event of annual leave or sick leave, the remaining officer would be on call  24 hours a day every day, permanently. Therefore a "one in two" on call system is illegal under the European working time directive.

In either situation, even if there were a full time, equipped officer available (being paid to do nothing other than wait around for six days a week), if there were one/two per county, it could take up to two hours of an officer to get to the scene. delaying assessment of a casualty for that long could result in the death of someone. ( I work in intensive care, and I promise you that it is NOT possible to assess from a distance, and that internal injuries are not visible at a distance.) It woud be terribly unsafe to operate a system where it could take hours to rescue a casualty, not to mention a dangerous dog running around the streets where it could cause more injuries to more people.
I am sorry, but your suggestions are not realistic. or cost effective.

> If you live by what you say your post is a bit  of a contradiction.

?? was that for me ??

if so how have I contradicted myself?? I have said that the sharing of opinions can lead to one seeing things from a different perspective. I have read other opinions and believe that the taser was the best option available at the time in that it is favourable to shooting the dog with a gun. I have not agreed with it's use in general and I still believe other options should be used instead.

I WAS posting my opinion...If you live by what you say your post is a bit  of a contradiction.


Why?

You can't control what people will make of a story, we all try to understand things in our own way, we agree and disagree with what other people say, but it is wrong to say that others should not state what they think, you did not wish to make a comment on the story other than what you read, which is absolutely fine, but many of us do, you chastised those who did and you got chastised back! :-D 

Everyones opinions, and yes, including yours (hence the above quote, I dare say ;-) ) are valid.

I'm sure we will agree on many other posts in the future and I do agree with the mid section of your post. ;-)

Mastifflover it was for me. :-)

> it could take up to two hours of an officer to get to the scene.

how can an armed response unit get there quick enough??

Now, as this was only an idea, and I haven't had chance to do a full financial analysis, my reasoning isn't that fantastic, but.. the county has 16 full time dog handlers (allready on the pay-roll), it wouldn't cost a massive aounmt for them to take it in turns to be on-call for out-of-hours incidents And why would it cost any more money to send a dog-handling officer than an armed respone unit??  How ever you look at it, who ever attends dangerous dog incidents are on the pay-roll, why would it cost any more to send someboy from the dog-handling school who is used to dealing with dogs??

> Mastifflover it was for me. :-)

oops :( I can't seem to keep my mouth shut today :)

> the county has 16 full time dog handlers (allready on the pay-roll), it wouldn't cost a massive aounmt for them to take it in turns to be on-call for out-of-hours incidents

Police dog handlers are on call 24/7 not just their shifts

BTW if you google police stun gun dog you will find it isn't the first time & far better IMHO than shooting & killing the dog(like the dog killed when the owner was ill & it hadn't attacked)

But mastifflover, the police have to have an armed response unit...they would need the dog officers in addition to the ARU, and not instead of them. therefore the cost is EXTRA. The sixteen employed dog handlers already cover the twenty four hour service on their normal shifts. If they covered the emergency service that you suggest, as part of their regular shifts, it still means that there may potentially be some delay in any individual incident in getting to the scene, as they may be on other duties which cannot be left. It may be that you meant that these full time officers should provide a specific on call service for dog incidents in addition to their regular shifts. THi swoudl again require more staff than you have suggested. To run an on call rota with 16 staff, once you have made allowances for leave and sickness, you actually are only dealing with maybe 10 staff. That would mean effectively an officer working full time hours, then being on call once every 10 days for a twenty four hour period on their day off. SO for an officer who would normally have eight days per month off duty ( four weekends ) they would have to do an extra three 24 hour shifts in that month, leaving them with only five days off per month. No way could that kind of rota be done without having quite a few more staff on the rota. Speaking as someone who  does twenty-four hour on call shifts I can tell you that to do three per month is unacceptable, as it also impacts on the following day if you have been up all night. Even if you are not called out, it means that you cannot go out, go on holiday, spend family time etc. Being on call is not a doddle, even if you dont get called out.

Financial arguments aside:
Every situation is totally different. The first responders on the scene have to make the decision on the spot, at the time, and protect the safety of any victim, and any potential victims, including responding officers, paramedics, and the general public. They need therefore to make their decision based on the information available to them at the time.
In this case, the paramedics needed to get to a casualty, in order to assess the persons injuries. They could not do so because of the risk of being bitten. ( and they should not be expected to take that risk). They called for police assistance to restrain the dog, and that action was needed QUICKLY, in order to establish the severity of the injuries, as this cannot be done at distance.The police on scene had to come up with the fastest solution available on the day, at that time. It appears that on this particular occasion the fastest available safe option was the taser. ( Maybe there was a taser trained officer on duty nearby, maybe dog handlers advised it, we will never know). Now at the end of it all, we ended up with:
1. a casualty that was alive and who got treated
2. Paramedics/police who didnt get bitten
3. a potentially dangerous dog was apprehended
4. A dog that was tasered ....but was ALIVE

I have to say that sounds like a pretty successful outcome to me. It could so easily have been worse.

> Police dog handlers are on call 24/7 not just their shifts

So why aren't they used for catching dogs, in favour of an armed response unit?

I also agree that a the taser was better than shooting the dog dead. But I see the taser as the lesser of 2 evils.  Just because the taser is used a lot doesn't make it right.

I have found this:

http://www.pets.info.vic.gov.au/02/spc_aco.htm#nasty

It's about Animal control officers in Austrailia. They are similar to dog wardens, but they deal with all pets including 'nasty dogs'.

Here's an extract regarding the catching of a 'nasty dog':

"If worst comes to worst and the dog will not come to the Officer, the Officer may use a dog pole to catch the dog. The pole is made of strong metal and has a loop of wire at one end. The loop of wire is coated with rubber to protect the dog's fur and neck when it's pulled tight. The loop of wire is placed over the dog's head and pulled tight to catch the dog. The strength of the pole means the Officer can keep the dog away from them when putting the dog in the van."

This seems quite sensible, the pole means that the catcher doesn't have to get in biting range of the dog, a taser means that the dog is imobilised, but somebody still has to get in biting range to secure it.

I can't see why trained police dog handlers/trained dog wardens isn't a better option than an armed response unit, and I don't think I ever will.

The only options the armed response unit have are shoot to kill or shoot to stun. Give them catch-poles and they have a third option :)

I would me more than happy to pay a licencing fee to be able to own my dogs, this would help with the funding of catch-poles, or ensuring that dog wardens are trained/available for such incidents.

ETA; if lincencing was brought in with compulsory micro chipping, the owners of such dogs could be traced & fined (adding to funding of running such a scheme), it may help make some of the irresponsible owners think about what they are doing.

if a trained handler had been the swiftest form of action at that time, it may well have been used. we  just dont know enough facts to comment on why that choice was made...but rest assured, that now that I know your feelings, should I ever discover you being shredded by dogs , I shall be perfectly happy to abide by your wishes and leave you being shredded until a dog handler gets there :-D :-D :-D :-D

I was actually thinkin last night that the local councils would do well to get organised with a proper department, what with changes to dealing with stray dogs too. I wonder what the salary would be?? Hmmm, maybe it's time for a career change....

(sorry to go off topic slightly ;) )

> that now that I know your feelings, should I ever discover you being shredded by dogs , I shall be perfectly happy to abide by your wishes and leave you being shredded until a dog handler gets there :-D :-D :-D :-D

lol, :) that's a good 'un, but I wouldn't stand around like a lemon doing nothing while I was being shredded, I am more than capeable of looking after myself, no need to even bother the dog handlers ;)

In that case, I suggest that you volunteer as one of these handlers that are on call day and night , day in day out, for going and saving those that are silly enough to stand around like lemons being bitten. Its obviously their own fault :-)

Good plan, but only if they give me a catch-pole :)

Oh dear on another note i fell weekend before last luckily my husband was with me he rarely is and i broke a rib (and god it hurts then and even now) what with me crying the dogs where very wary of my husband they couldn't understand what was going on when he was trying to help me up and i was screaming they where constantly barking at him, if i were alone and someone else offered to help i really doubt my dogs would let anyone near me in that situation but for arguments sake i'd rather mine got taserd so i got medical help..

Oh no, a broken rib :( I have only ever broken a toe, I can't imagine how painful a broken rib must be, it must hurt just breathing :( I hope you feel better soon.

hazard of the breed lol i have had 2 broken toes, broken fingers many times (always down to my stupidity) just trying to say i would rather mine got stunned than shot its not their fault its just instinct to react..

Hi pinklillies,
I totally agree, the dog would have to be pts anyway. It is always easy to criticize others in a situation. My personal automatic response in a situation like that would have been to try and calm the dog but! if it had lost it, you would put it out of it's misery, it could never be trusted again, no life for the dog. Kindest thing. What ever breed it is.
If you lived in the city you would see how vicious the staffies are being bred.
I only heard on Sunday that an old women who was walking her old greyhounds, in our area, were she has been walking them for years. Three teenagers had there staff off the lead and said go, it went and ripped the old greyhound to bits bite the old Women and they all ran off. The dog had to be pts and the old lady has not been out since.
If I had been there with any weapon to stop it, I would have, so I can't lie or be a hypocrite. They were lucky to be in a position to have a stun gun.

Denese

I am a Police Officer, and I can assure you, although I am not a firearms trained officer or part of a dog unit, I would have had no qualms about using my Pava (pepper) spray or the fire extinguisher from the police vehicle in these circumstances!

I am a Police Officer, and I can assure you, although I am not a firearms trained officer or part of a dog unit, I would have had no qualms about using my Pava (pepper) spray or the fire extinguisher from the police vehicle in these circumstances!

And quite right too!

All this talk of having police officers "trained" to deal with these incidents is ridiculous.....thats why we have dog wardens. Obviously if the dog warden is not available and it is an emergency situation like this was then the police would step in and deal with it in whichever way they deemed reasonable.