Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

I think the blanket ban on certain breeds goes far beyond "fairness".

It' s not only "not fair", it's immoral.

Sentencing an animal to death for human failure is bad enough, but the mass execution of a whole breed of animal is reminiscent of the times when cats were burned at the stake for being "witches".

I thought this society had progressed a bit from that, what with all the political correctness and equality law and anti-discrimination law etc ...


...apparently not.

From the original thread:

The breeds are: English Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Japanese Akita, Bull Mastiff, Japanese Tosa and Bandog. Cross-breeds of these dogs or crosses of these dogs with any other breed are also banned.

Hagar

I'd say as a landlord DCC probably have every right to disallow ownership of dogs, cats or any other pets while renting from them.

Fine.

But they have no right to discriminate between certain breeds of dogs and they DEFINETLY have no right to condemn all dogs of a certain breed to death.

But what really gets my blood boiling is their bloody cheek to request that their "brilliant idea" should be implement nationwide, where they have no authority whatsoever. Are we all taking orders from DCC now ?

What makes this issue so problematic is that within their council houses they probably have quite a few anti-social dog owners with genuinely dangerous dogs. So this "hard-line" approach probably goes down quite well with the majority of their tenants and the respective councillors can blow the "greater good" trumpet and feel righteous.

Other councils probably face similar issues and this idea might spread fairly rapidly, if nothing is done about it.


This whole ban is totally unecessary though.

Existing legislation provides for the punishment of owners, the confiscation of dogs and, if necessary, also for the destruction of genuinely dangerous dog.

But once again ...nobody has the gumption to face up to the bullies and skangers, instead another law is introduced that hits innocent dogs and people and will be totally ignored by those who it's meant for.

To all those who still think that this ban mightn't be such a bad idea after all :

What would you all say if from tomorrow on all Honda Civics, VW Golfs, BMW 3 and 5 series, Toyota Corollas, Fiat Puntos, Nissan Almeras, Renault Meganes, Opel Astras, Toyota Glanzas and Nissan Skylines (that's 11 right?)would be confiscated and scrapped beeecaaause ...they are the joyriders favourite cars and as we all know joyriders are dangerous and they have or could have killed some children.

Ridiculous, right?


And so is DCC's ban ...no two ways about it.

Another thing:

In the other thread yesterday somebody made a pretty good comparison to learner drivers and the whole road safety issue.

Let's think for a moment:
How many people get killed on the roads every year? Hundreds, right. Yet the governement still see fit to let just under half a million people drive on these roads without having passed a test.

now ...

How many people are seriously injured (never mind killed) by dogs every year?
I genuinely don't know ...but it couldn't be many. Yet DCC have single handedly taken it upon themselves to rid the country of the menace of "dangerous dogs". It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

How about DCC banning learner drivers from their estates? ...they are far more likely to kill a child than any dog.

This whole thing is a populistic witch hunt by grossly misguided people.

Tackle the issue at the core. Go after the anti-social dog owners in person. Punish them for their misdeeds. Make them responsible for what they're doing Take away their dogs and if you absouletly have to, then destroy them (the dogs).


I blame the media as well.
Somwhere deep within us, there still are the remnants of the cave-man. The cave-man that genuinely and for a reason feared the "big bad wolf".
It's to that cave-man that the sensationalist coverage of "maulings" and "savagings" appeals, coverage that sells papers and boosts quotas and creates a hype.


Unfortunatly it also seems to be the same cave-man that makes our laws these days.

ANVIL press release:

Death sentence looms over family pets following Dublin City Councils’ decision
national | rights and freedoms | press release Sunday July 08, 2007 01:22 by Miriam Anderson - ANVIL Ireland info at anvilireland dot ie PO Box, 10914, Dublin 22 0861999512
Council tenants tagetted in councils' latest move

Many family pets are at risk of being destroyed following the decision by Dublin City Council to ban all dogs listed under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991.

ANVIL Ireland has condemned this move. Spokesperson, Miriam Anderson stated “this decision appears to have been made in the absence of any informed discussion with rescue or welfare groups. The fact that Dublin City Council has referred to all of these breeds as “dangerous dogs” implies a total lack of understanding of both the breeds in question and the existing legislation”.
Many family pets are at risk of being destroyed following the decision by Dublin City Council to ban all dogs listed under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991. Restricted breeds include; the American Pit Bull Terrier, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Dobermann Pinscher, English Bull Terrier, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Ban Dog or any crosses of these breeds.

ANVIL Ireland has condemned this move. Spokesperson, Miriam Anderson stated “this decision appears to have been made in the absence of any informed discussion with rescue or welfare groups. The fact that Dublin City Council has referred to all of these breeds as “dangerous dogs” implies a total lack of understanding of both the breeds in question and the existing legislation”.

Some of these breeds were originally bred as herding animals, it is bad breeding, irresponsible owners, and negative reporting by certain sections of the media that has led to this situation. Education and stricter enforcement of the existing legislation is what is needed, not an outright ban. Such bans have not worked in other countries and to say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not an accurate statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner

This is discrimination against council tenants as well as any responsible owner of one of these breeds. The councils’ proposed bylaw amendments will mean that these animals could not be walked in a public park, regardless of where its’ owner lives.

ANVIL members are angry but not surprised by the councils’ decision; “It further proves how little we care for companion animals in this country when an ill advised decision like this can be taken so quickly, but we have waited over a year for the implementation of the dog breeding regulations, and almost 100 years for updated animal protection legislation. We cannot call ourselves civilised if we can treat animals in this cavalier fashion”, their spokesperson said.

ANVIL is calling on all owners of restricted breeds to write to Dublin City Council and the Minister for the Environment to register their opposition to the councils’ decision and proposal of a nationwide ban on these dogs. Further information may be obtained from www.anvilireland.ie

For more information, contact: Miriam Anderson, ANVIL Ireland Co-ordinator on 0861999512 and/or visit the ANVIL Ireland website www.anvilireland.ie



Related Link: http://www.anvilireland.ie

http://www.indymedia.ie/openwire

peasant wrote:

Hagar

I'd say as a landlord DCC probably have every right to disallow ownership of dogs, cats or any other pets while renting from them.

Fine.

But they have no right to discriminate between certain breeds of dogs and they DEFINETLY have no right to condemn all dogs of a certain breed to death.

But what really gets my blood boiling is their bloody cheek to request that their "brilliant idea" should be implement nationwide, where they have no authority whatsoever. Are we all taking orders from DCC now ?

What makes this issue so problematic is that within their council houses they probably have quite a few anti-social dog owners with genuinely dangerous dogs. So this "hard-line" approach probably goes down quite well with the majority of their tenants and the respective councillors can blow the "greater good" trumpet and feel righteous.

Other councils probably face similar issues and this idea might spread fairly rapidly, if nothing is done about it.


This whole ban is totally unecessary though.

Existing legislation provides for the punishment of owners, the confiscation of dogs and, if necessary, also for the destruction of genuinely dangerous dog.

But once again ...nobody has the gumption to face up to the bullies and skangers, instead another law is introduced that hits innocent dogs and people and will be totally ignored by those who it's meant for.

To all those who still think that this ban mightn't be such a bad idea after all :

What would you all say if from tomorrow on all Honda Civics, VW Golfs, BMW 3 and 5 series, Toyota Corollas, Fiat Puntos, Nissan Almeras, Renault Meganes, Opel Astras, Toyota Glanzas and Nissan Skylines (that's 11 right?)would be confiscated and scrapped beeecaaause ...they are the joyriders favourite cars and as we all know joyriders are dangerous and they have or could have killed some children.

Ridiculous, right?

Agree, a ridiculous argument!

BTW, I've yet to read of any incidents of cars mauling/intimidating residents.
The new law prohibits certain breeds from specific locations, and is not a unilateral ban, although this may come in time. Afterall, it is mainly the behaviour of irresponsible dog owners but also too many incidents involving certain breeds that have brought this about.

For far too long there are too many everyday cases of dog lovers blatantly breaching the regulations on dog control. There are too many Rambos with dogs and it will end now.

Like I said before bad owners make bad dogs, but the damage has been done.

As someone who lives in the middle of the area the DCC are addressing - basically North Inner City, I have to say I'm inclined to agree with this action. It's addressed at their properties and an element of the people who live in them.

Some of the appalling cruelty, both physical and psychological I've witnessed dogs being put through, dogs people would claim are 'family pets' (although almost exclusively owned by young males), is unbelievable. The fact that the particular breeds addressed by the DDC action are so prevalent in the area is because of their trophy status and the fact that they can be used as personal protection, their aggressiveness is encouraged. I've witnessed pitbulls being brought down to where feral cat colonies are and let off the lead to kill them as a sport and boxers being set on people during arguments/fights.

Added to the conditions in which some of them are kept; I've seen fully grown boxers being kept on council flat balconies, surely no one can claim that's any good for the animals state of mind?

Why do people claiming these dogs are family pets gravitate towards and pay for these specific breeds when they are living in public housing unsuitable for keeping large dogs? It's not fair on the dogs, I believe the motivation for keeping such dogs is certainly questionable.

I think where the DCC have fallen down is in not contacting the DSPCA to arrange before hand for the homing of those animals that are suitable.

The worst case as far as the DCC's point of view goes would following a disturbed, mis-treated, powerful highly bred dog attacking someone on their properties they would be sued for allowing such a dog be kept, as ultimately they're responsible for their tenants, forcing the inevitable banning of all dogs from council properties, a move which would obvioulsy be discriminatory against those that do actually keep dogs as companions and give them the respect they deserve.

just saw this on the main page, could someone please explain, is there a law being passed that will require all these dogs in Ireland to be put down:eek: ???

Can't be for real.. is it?

cormie

not in those exact words, but putting them down will be the final consequence for most of them

Dublin city Council has banned these dogs from their properties. The owners are given a grace period to rehome them, after that they will be destroyed.

DCC have also asked the minister of the environment and local government to implement this law on a nationwide basis.

I own a Mastiff or old english mastiff which ever u like to call it!!! i see from the list that a bull mastiff is to be banned and it goes on to say that and cross breed will also be banned.....as far as i am concerned the bullmastiff is a cross breed of the mastiff i.e. the mastiff is the original here...does this mean that a mastiff would not be banned? There are many different breeds of mastiff also

lphchild wrote:

Again I think it should be emphasised this is directed at DCC properties, flats and houses in disadvantaged areas, wholly unsuitable for large/highly bred potentially aggressive dogs.

Ah, well that makes it slightly better, in fact it could be a positive thing (providing the dogs are re-homed and not killed). I think a dog should have a good bit of space to be able to run around and bury bones and everything. Space is the only issue though, a dog can still be loved and treated well regardless of area.

cormie wrote:

Basically, what I meant when I said it's slightly better is that you could only own a dog on the condition you had x amount of space for it.

Sorry, cormie, but you still haven't understood what this is all about.

This has NOTHING to do with animal welfare.

If you live in a DCC property and you have a Staffie (a reasonably small dog), you love it, you keep it well, you train it well, you have it well socialised and you even have enough space for it ...basically you're doing EVERYTHING right ...they're still going to come and take it away from you ...just because it's a Staff.

If on the other hand you have a St. Bernard, you keep it in a cardboard box on a balcony, you never feed it, you never walk it, you totally neglect it and on top of it all you beat it every day ...nobody in DCC gives a sh*t for that St. Bernard ...because it's not on the list.


Has it sunk in now?

Still not quite right, cormie

We don't need any bans on dogs ...be that in DCC properties or on a house to house basis across the country.

What we need is legislation that secures basic animal rights (and not just for dogs). Proper breeding and living conditions for all animals.

What we have at the moment is legislation on how dogs should be controlled ...but even that isn't enforced.

Bambi wrote:

explain why they're wholly unsuitable.


Also while you're at it explain why you think every DCC property is in a disadvantaged area.

I would have to generalise, but the majority of the dogs on the list are classified dangerous for a reason, being in large part based on the amount of physical strength a breed may possess and in part on reputation, however general and unfair that may be perceived as.

I don't agree that's its the dogs fault in anyway, it's completely the owners fault if they haven't got proper control of their dog. One of the areas in which an animals welfare needs to be judged is on the accommodation they have, the amount of exercise they get and the amount of general space available to them. No one, in my mind, can rightly argue that a large dog should be in a DCC flat, it's not right for it physically, or mentally.

I know all DCC property isn't in disadvantaged areas but the blanket action covers all DCC property because it has to deal in the lowest common denominator, small inner city flats, and houses without the proper facilities for the listed dogs, which are historically in disadvantaged areas. The facts are undisputed. People are keeping animals, and from the DCC's point of view potentially dangerous animals, in inappropriate accommodation, for reasons which are not in the vein of family pets.

I don't want to see any dogs put down, and if their owners genuinely care I'm sure they will go to the greatest lengths possible to re-home their family pets if they fall under this directive, and from my experience with the DCC I'm sure they will treat these unlucky people sensitively.

However, there are an awful lot of scumbags who will be more concerned that the €500 they paid for the weapon they call a dog will have been wasted...

Again this should serve as a call to action ,an illicit a practical response from the relevant charities. They should now be concerned with getting in touch with people and helping them re-home the dogs, implementing an action plan... if ever there was chance to get the relevant funding, whether it be from the public, while the issue is current, the DCC itself or central government, to secure homes for dogs coming from circumstances which border if not cross the line of abuse, this should be it.

nipplenuts wrote:

This is absolutely true. But, the persons DCC are targetting are not going to get Cocker Spaniels instead. The problem lies with the thug status accorded to these dogs. Not the fault of the dogs, but until legislation permits the extermination of scumbags it seems the Council are only doing what they can.

I'd hate to be the one that got the DCC scheme stopped when some 5 year old in their area gets savaged.

Germany has a similar ban on pitbull type dogs. It was introduced nationwide after the pitbull of some doped out pimp/drug dealer in Hamburg killed a child.

Guess what?

The drug dealer/pimp scene around Hamburgs St. Pauli district have now "branched out" into having five or six terriers instead of one pitbull.

I kid you not ...