muzzled in the backyard?

[DreamLord34]

I have a neighbor down the street that always has his dalmatian-type dog muzzled when he's in the backyard.
Is this legal for them to do? There is absolutely no reason to do that.

[Mouse]

He may have bitten before, and has been ordered to have the dog muzzled when outside??

[T_Totler]

He may have bitten before, and has been ordered to have the dog muzzled when outside??
Ditto

[DreamLord34]

The dog is being muzzled in a completely enclosed backyard that has a solid wood fence around it. The dog can also NOT jump over the fence. So even if the dog has bitten before, there is no need to muzzle it in the backyard.
The fence is solid to the point where you cannot see through it.
The only way you can see the dog is when he's standing on the back porch with his front paws on something to get him to see above the fence.

The worst thing he seems to do is bark but he always wags his tail when he does.

[Ken_ver_1_5]

I know it sounds bad but the owner is not taking chances in losing his dog.
if some one climbed the fence and the dog bit that person the owner can be sued and or the dog put down.

[Deathhawk78]

Maybe it barks allot.

[DreamLord34]

Ken, I am sorry but that is still no reason!

As for barking, that has nothing to do with it. Muzzles don't deter barking.

[SPARKY]

14. (1) Where the Medical Officer of Health has reason to believe that a dog has
bitten a person or domestic animal, the Medical Officer of Health shall,

(a) where the bite is the first bite on record with the City, and where
the bite occurred on the owner's premises, serve the owner with a
Notice of Caution;

(b) serve the owner with a Notice to Muzzle if in his or her opinion
the bite referred to in clause 14 (1)(a) is severe;

(c) where the bite is a second or subsequent bite on record with the
City, serve the owner with a Notice to Muzzle.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/1999/law0028.htm

[DreamLord34]

And no where does that say anything about muzzling in the person's own backyard.
That law would only pertain if the owner took the dog out into the public, of which, it is not.

The dog is on PRIVATE property, thereby nulling that law as it is not PUBLIC property.

That is also ONLY a bylaw that is only affective in Toronto. It has NO baring anywhere else.

They have sorry laws to begin with. Look at their hand gun law. That works OH so damn well.

[debbie]

Why not just ask your neighbour why they muzzle their dog?

There is probably a logical explanation.

[SPARKY]

It's his dog, his property, his choice, it's not against the law to do so.

As for the handgun law, other cities have banned handguns altogether, criminals don't care about laws.

[Mouse]

From the By-law.


(4) Once a Notice to Muzzle has been issued and properly served upon the owner of the dog, no person shall permit the dog to be off the premises of the owner unless properly muzzled.

(5) For the purposes of subsection 15(4), where an owner of a dog has exclusive possession of part of a building or property, premises means that portion of the property of which the owner has exclusive possession.

So, the backyard is at his option.

[Deathhawk78]

And this bother you why?

Maybe it has rabies. LOL :)

[Taz]

Dalamations can be very high strung and nip quite frequently, I am going to guess (and it is only that) that the owner is covering his own ass. DL you know very well that if by chance a person entered that back yard with or without permission and that dog bit the owner is liable, and could loose his companion and be sued. A muzzle however unattractive is not inhumane in any way. the dog can still bark and drink.

[SPARKY]

Muzzles are used to reduce the risk a dog poses to people and other animals by restricting the dog's ability to bite. They are commonly used by veterinarians and animal care staff concerned with handling or treating frightened, injured or distressed dogs, as well as anyone managing - or introducing - dogs that may be aggressive to people or other animals. Some municipal bylaws or provincial legislation, such as Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act, may require your dog to be muzzled when off your property, or on your property in an unsecured area.

http://www.ontariospca.ca/2-behavtips-dog3.shtml

[DreamLord34]

From the By-law.



So, the backyard is at his option.

That says when off the premises though, not on.


DeathHawk, it bothers me because dogs shouldn't be muzzled 24/7.


Taz, I don't believe that. Look at dogs that are for security for a business.
If they bite a trespasser, they won't be suing the owners as the dog is there to prevent trespassing. Same with private property.


Sparky, it is a 100% secured area that the dog is in.
The fence is similar to the one in this pic (http://www.fenceonline.com/privacywoodfence.html).

The dog has no way of getting out. It's around 6 feet tall as well.

As for this beiong legal or not is the reasoning behind this discussion. :)

[Mouse]

I understand your concern for Sparky, but this comes under the category of things you care about, but cannot change.

You have to let it go, unfortunately.

[justabitcrazee]

Is there kids there? Maybe they like to play in the back yard?

I think if Sparky really cared that he had a muzzle on, he would be trying to get it off or showing some sort of fuss from having to wear it.

[SPARKY]

For anyone reading this post I'm SPARKY the human, not the dog Sparky.

[DreamLord34]

Is there kids there? Maybe they like to play in the back yard?

I think if Sparky really cared that he had a muzzle on, he would be trying to get it off or showing some sort of fuss from having to wear it.

They have kids but they never play in the backyard when outside.
I walk a pit bull with a muzzle and he doesn't try to take it off the entire time he's out in public.
So just because I don't see the dog in question fussing, doesn't mean that it doesn't bother him. Remember, when he's not up on the porch with his fore legs on something to see above the fence, I can't see what he does.

[Mikey2008]

sorry but if the owner wants to muzzle the dog then so be it. obviously u think its wrong and the owner does not. what makes u so sure it bothers the dog??

[DreamLord34]

sorry but if the owner wants to muzzle the dog then so be it. obviously u think its wrong and the owner does not. what makes u so sure it bothers the dog??

Just because the owner thinks it's right, does not make it right by any means.

Look at the pit bulls that are abused to get them mean because their owners "think it's ok".
So don't hand me that crap.

Some men think it's ok to abuse women. Does that make it right?
Not at all.
So again, your post is pointless.

[Taz]

a muzzle is not abusive, beating an animal is. A muzzle is a control measure the same as a halti collar is. If the muzzle fit so the dog couldn't drink then it would be abusive

[Mikey2008]

Just because the owner thinks it's right, does not make it right by any means.

Look at the pit bulls that are abused to get them mean because their owners "think it's ok".
So don't hand me that crap.

Some men think it's ok to abuse women. Does that make it right?
Not at all.
So again, your post is pointless.

so you say "just because the owner thinks it's right, does not make it right by any means"......so i guess it could be said that just becasue you think its wrong doesn't make it wrong my any means right????

why must so many put pets as humans. no matter what i say and you being a dog lover, my comments won't matter as you have already made up in your mind that your going to be the knight in shinning armour coming to that dogs rescue. comparing a man abusing a women to a DOG is a weak argument. not even on the same page, not even on the same planet. comparing animals to humans is crazy. the problem is to many put pets on the same level as humans. and i think thats wrong. to love an animal is one thing to treat it like its your baby is another. i am tired of people going to the rescue to animals that are not in need of rescue. you have no idea how the dog feels yet you assume its in distress because YOU don't think its right. its a d...o...g. plain and simple. sheesh. its you sir who's point is pointless.

on a footnote there are many animals that are abused and not taken care of and i agree its a tragic thing. but trying to find a cause where none exisits is a dangerous place to be!

[DreamLord34]

Mikey, I wasn't comparing animals to humans. I was making a point that just because one person thinks doing something is right, doesn't mean that it is right. Not sure why you thought I was comparing the two when I wasn't in the slightest.


Why do so many put their pets as humans or even before humans? Look at the human race. They are the worse form of life on this planet. Dogs only get mean etc because of humans.
I know animals get abused all the time. Still doesn't make it right.
Have you seen what happens at slaughterhouses? They torture them first.

So again, my point that you missed earlier is that just because one person thinks doing one thing is ok, does NOT make it ok.

What I posted before were examples of humans thinking certain things are ok to do.

I never even once insinuated that I thought the dog was in distress, ever. I even stated that the dog cannot be seen unless it is up on the porch barking.

Just because it's a dog doesn't mean it's any less important than anyone else.

[webby_sph]

who says a 6 foot fence will keep a dog in? (or 8 feet or 10 for that matter)...the last time my dog got out he dug under it....

[justabitcrazee]

For anyone reading this post I'm SPARKY the human, not the dog Sparky.

We should call the dog Fido maybe then LOL :)

[Exmortis]

If they bite a trespasser, they won't be suing the owners as the dog is there to prevent trespassing.

By the way, that's not true.

[DreamLord34]

By the way, that's not true.

Then what is the purpose of a guard dog if not to guard the premises?

[Exmortis]

To guard and to maul are two different things. Look at past court cases.

[Exmortis]

Then what is the purpose of a guard dog if not to guard the premises?

Here's a sample of "Guard dog law":

Since guard dogs may cause serious injury to people, the law imposes special duties on their keepers. Under the Guard Dogs Act 1975, a person may not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a handler, capable of controlling the dog, is present on the premises and the dog is under the handler's control while it is used.

If you label your dog as a "Guard Dog", you also need clear warning notice around your premise. You can't use a "guard dog" excuse after an attack.

[SPARKY]

For anyone reading this post I'm SPARKY the human, not the dog Sparky.


We should call the dog Fido maybe then LOL :)


That would clear things up.

[DreamLord34]

Who said anything about mauling?
Police dogs bite the one they chase as well. It's what they are supposed to do.

[Exmortis]

Who said anything about mauling?
Police dogs bite the one they chase as well. It's what they are supposed to do.

Have you looked at the laws and rules of K9 units? How does that compare to the guard dog act?

[lovey]

I have a dog that spends alot of time in the back yard,I just posted a sign that reads warning dog on site,if someone comes in my back yard and the dog bites them that's there problem

[DreamLord34]

Here's a sample of "Guard dog law":

Since guard dogs may cause serious injury to people, the law imposes special duties on their keepers. Under the Guard Dogs Act 1975, a person may not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a handler, capable of controlling the dog, is present on the premises and the dog is under the handler's control while it is used.

If you label your dog as a "Guard Dog", you also need clear warning notice around your premise. You can't use a "guard dog" excuse after an attack.


I seriously doubt they have to have a handler on site 24/7. If so, the dog is not needed to patrol the yard.
There is a lumber yard here that uses a guard dog with signs posted. He is in his cage until the business is closed & he is let out of his cage to patrol the yard for any trespassers. No one else is there.

Also, here (http://doglaw.hugpug.com/doglaw_082.html) is an interesting link for normal dogs in their own yards.

"The owner may be able to avoid liability if the injured person:

* provoked the injury from the dog (provoked by trespassing into HIS yard)
* knowingly took the risk of being injured by the dog (disregarded signs posted)
* was trespassing
* was breaking the law, or
* was unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to the injury."

That is exactly what I was referring to previously. Now show me a law that says that will never happen.
If anyone that the dog does not know jumps into the dog's yard, they are provoking the dog. The dog will see someone enter his yard & will bark & sometimes go after the intruder.
Most will run up & lick the person, others will attack them, others will run away.

Now show me a law that prohibits a dog owner from allowing their dog to stop intruders. A stranger jumping into a strange dog's yard IS provoking that dog. Why do you think the common saying is to NOT approach dogs you do not know?
This is no different.

[Exmortis]

Dreamlord, don't quote non-Ontario laws. They mean nothing to us. Read the Ontario "Dog Owners Liability Act".

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Ontario.htm
Another difference between Ontario law and many US dog bite statutes is that the former does not automatically exempt a criminal.

[DreamLord34]

There is no mention of the victim trespassing in that. So again, show me a law that prohibits a secured dog from biting an intruder, when said intruder jumps into the secured yard.

Taken from the DOLA.
""The owner of a dog shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent it from biting or attacking."

The owner DID exercise reasonable precautions by installing a solid wood fence surrounding the yard.


""Where a person is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act on the premises and incurs damage caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog, the owner is not liable under section 2 unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property."

There you go. NOT liable if the dog bites an intruder.

Obviously the dog isn't there unreasonably.

[Exmortis]

There is a lumber yard here that uses a guard dog with signs posted. He is in his cage until the business is closed & he is let out of his cage to patrol the yard for any trespassers. No one else is there.

By the way, sure they can do that. However, if there's a dog bite, the victim have lots of powers according to our laws. The lumber yard wants to take the risk, go ahead.

[Exmortis]

There is no mention of the victim trespassing in that.

Trespassing is breaking a law and therefore falls under the definition of "criminal". If you're willing to go to court to debate that with the judge, be my guest. You may win, or you may lose. However, it'll cost ya either way. Your choice.

[DreamLord34]

The fact of the matter is this, the owner is NOT liable if his dog bites a trespasser, as stated in that dog bite law link.

You had said previously that it was not true, that the victim could sue to getting bit.

I just showed you that it is true. The owner is not liable, therefore, cannot be sued.


This still doesn't justify the dog in question being muzzled while in it's own yard, though.

[Exmortis]

The fact of the matter is this, the owner is NOT liable if his dog bites a trespasser, as stated in that dog bite law link.

No such thing is stated. I quote:

A significant difference between Ontario law and the usual dog bite strict liability statute in the United States is that there is no automatic exemption for trespassers.

It's up to the judge to determine the liability. If you think you can handle the risk, then go ahead.

[DreamLord34]

I took that quote directly from that statutory law link you provided. Are you now disputing what you posted?

That is EXACTLY what it states.


""Where a person is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act on the premises and incurs damage caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog, the owner is not liable under section 2 unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property."

[Exmortis]

But you forgot the very last part which is very important:

"unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property."

And that's leaving complete prejudice on the judge. Plus, YOU have to prove criminal intent. So again, as I said, nothing is automatic. Nothing is guaranteed. The onus will still be on you.

And if you're willing to give it a try in court, be my guest.

[Exmortis]

Here's the full act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90d16_e.htm

If you're comfortable to know precisely and exactly how every single judges in the province will apply it, then you're safe.

[DreamLord34]

Let me ask you this, do you think it's unreasonable for a dog to be in a large fenced in yard?
This dog is not there under any kind of unreasonable means.
Dogs are supposed to be in backyards. They are not supposed to be kept inside 24/7.
The judge would not see any unreasonable means that the dog was kept there. it's a large, fenced in yard. Typical of the majority of dog owners.

[Exmortis]

Let me ask you this, do you think it's unreasonable for a dog to be in a large fenced in yard?

The judge would not see any unreasonable means that the dog was kept there. it's a large, fenced in yard. Typical of the majority of dog owners.

That's your interpretation. That doesn't make you right. I showed you that the current law has no guarantees for dog owners. It's your choice whether you want to take the risk or not. And the penalty for not reading the act properly can be heavy.

And all these little escapes that I showed you will be very much used by the defense's lawyer.

[DreamLord34]

Again, how would the dog be there unreasonably?
Dogs are SUPPOSED to be in large back yards.
The SPCA, Humane Society etc would all agree with that, in that it is NOT unreasonable to keep a dog in a large yard.
IF it were to be unreasonable, they would not tell new owners to have a large yard for their dogs to run & play in as they would be contributing to breaking a law. Law as in the dog is/was kept unreasonably.
There is no proof that the dog is there unreasonably.
Going by what the law states & what the actual situation is, I don't see me being wrong.
Now, if said yard was really really small, then it would be unreasonable. Small as in no room to be able to run around in.

[Exmortis]

Re-read... unreasonable for the purpose of the protection

Go ask a lawyer. See what he says.

[Omnios]

Nice little dogs are nice and nasty dogs are usually the result of the owner. If your dog likes to lunge at people and don not train it different its your fault. However A dog is a weapon so if you send it after some one your probably doing time. Even if a guy comes in your yard and gets seriously mauled you are screwed. A guard dog is there to stop an intruder not maul him. Things have changed with vicious breeds and "vicious dogs". It boils down to a few years ago when basically they where stating that you are responsible for your dog. If you dog is biting people muzzle it because you are responsible. If your dog killed some one you might be seeing bars for a very long time.

The dogs laws are vague which can be very bad for a dog owner as you are responsible for your dog. And a dog that mauls someone is a vicious dog and "The he never did that before" is not going to get them anyware.

Anyways a few years ago saw a nice fleindly muzzled lab doing I want t get petted look and his tail was in super wag mode. Anyways as I walked up to the store the lady holding him said dont come up to hime
he likes to bite.