Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

rugger · 08-07-2007 4:52pm #1

I think this is all worded wrong- there should be a ban on dangerous OWNERS as apposed to breeds. I own the most placid, lovable, kid loving, dog loving dog in the world.
Whenevr we go for a walk he is delighted to see other dogs and immediately drops into the 'lets play' pose with his head down and bum in the air. 100% of the time that there were snarls, barks or aggressive behavior it was always the other dog that was the aggressor- more often that not a small, furry, quite little hairball.
When I go to my Rugby club there are kids lining up to play with him because he is so much fun and very Tollerant with kids- in Fact in the UK they are dubbed the NANNY dog because they are so goods with Kids. They were voted by the UK Kennel club as 1 of 2 dogs deemed to be good with kids- out of 90 Breeds.

He is also recently been branded as 'Dangerous' by someone in Dublin and has effectively been given the death sentence all because he is a STAFFY.

They will have to kill me first- just after they dealt with irresponsible breeders.

THIS IS NOT FAIR :mad: :mad: :mad:

peasant · 08-07-2007 5:40pm

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.

Hagar · 08-07-2007 5:42pm

What's the full list of affected breeds?

peasant · 08-07-2007 6:11pm

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.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 08-07-2007 6:39pm

Well like I said on the original thread.

I'm in the process of finding a Staffy and I'm damned if I'll just roll over and die because of someone else's ignorance.

Yesterday I emailed some of my local councillors and TD's protesting against this act by DCC, I hope other's follow suit.

corkimp · 08-07-2007 6:51pm

Sent this email to ANVIL yesterday:

I hear Dublin CIty council are bringing in an act to stop people living in council houses/apartments or estates from owning any of the dogs listed on the Dangerous Dogs Act. How can that possibly stop any problems by doing that - it's just lead to more innocent dogs being destroyed just for them being that breed of dog?! How is that legal? Any ideas how I can help stop this act? Espically when they are considering making it to involve the entire country? I'd appreciate hearing from you in regards to this and how I and my friends can help you with this. Thank you

Now before anyone points out - I realised I should have put down Control of Dogs Act - my own mistake to which I aplogised to the Anvil rep. for. I got a reply. I pm'd Bond-007 to make sure it was ok....didn't want to cause any problems.... anyways here's the reply:

Hi Mary,

I was contacted about this by a journalist from the Times. We've issued a statement which I believe will be in tomorrow Times. It's unbelievable that these restrictions have been brought in with no reference to any animal welfare organisations. As usual it will punish the animals and also the responsible owners.

We will be initiating a campaign to stop this being extended to the rest of the country and we would indeed welcome any help offered with this. It will take me a day or two to put something together but I will get back to you with the details.

thanks for contacting us,

kind regards, Miriam

I'll let you know what happens - gonna fight this idiot knee jerk reaction. Even if it means going to Dublin and doing a protest march...I'm game!

arybvtcw0eolkf · 08-07-2007 7:05pm

corkimp wrote:

I'm game!

They shoot game on the shooting forum!!!.. :eek:

Just kidding, thanks for making en effort and I'll post any replies I get from councillors and TD's too.

I can not believe people are really planning on making extinct, 11 types of dog's from Ireland.

Sickening.

OP, thanks for restarting this discussion again, hopefully this time some people can hold their tongues and we might be able to get some form of strong protest going here.

Hagar · 08-07-2007 7:05pm

Personally I love Dobermans, fantastic animals, I used to show them quite sucessfully, but I have to admit while the DCC action is very high handed I can see justification in what they are doing.

I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of those breeds are used by young hard men on council estates to intimidate others and that is what is at the heart of these new bye-laws. If we are honest with ourselves we will admit the truth of this. The DCC are trying to make their estates more liveable for ordinary decent people. But as usual in Ireland the answer is never to enforce existing adequate legislation, just pile on more laws.

Many of those breeds require a lot of execise and space which probably isn't available in the average DCC home. I'm not in favour of having dogs put down for no reason but I would be in favour of all current owners registering their dogs and letting them live their lives out naturally with no new dogs being allowed.

corkimp · 08-07-2007 7:23pm

I also believe they should be limited to just 1 of these breeds in these houses. Yes, these breeds need a lot of space and exercise. But then again, how many people do you see who own greyhounds in these estates? Greyhounds (I don't want to be causing hassle just an example) can be dangerous...mainly In cork there were a few of these types of incidents. But in the eyes of TD's, t.v. and papers, far more interest will be raised if you show stories of "dangerous" dogs biting people. Can you imagine the story title being - "Child mauled by vicious Jack Russell"...won't sell enough for them huh? Bit ridiculous they don't do their research.

peasant · 08-07-2007 7:31pm

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.

corkimp · 08-07-2007 7:58pm

good point peasant....they might now get ideas bout the cars now lol! they are trying for a quick fix solution....not gonna happen. Doesn't it have to be put to vote?

Anyone want to join me emailing DublinCity Council? I searched their site and got this email addy:
customerservices@dublincity.ie
Think I'll email them now

rugger · 08-07-2007 8:08pm

Is there anyway that we can join forces to voice our opinions (this for those who believe the ban is draconian and something one would not expect from a first world country)

Maybe vets, hospitals have records from dog attack/ biting incidents and they might also be privy to info regarding the type of dog. I'm certain it will make for interseting reading to compare these stats.

Have a sheepdog, Jack Russel, Poodle etc (no disrespect to these breeds, only want to prove a point) never bitten or attacked humans or other dogs?????

peasant · 08-07-2007 8:15pm

rugger

no offence, but I think trying to defend certain breeds by pointing at others and saying "but look ...such and such a breed is worse" is the wrong approach.

It isn't about breed, its about training, containment and responsible owners.

rugger · 08-07-2007 8:21pm

peasant wrote:

Hagar

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.

If 80 out of the last 100 shoplifting incidents were commited by people wearing hoodies- does that make 80% of hoodie wearing people shoplifters? Ban hoodies?:mad:

rugger · 08-07-2007 8:23pm

peasant wrote:

rugger

no offence, but I think trying to defend certain breeds by pointing at others and saying "but look ...such and such a breed is worse" is the wrong approach.

It isn't about breed, its about training, containment and responsible owners.

No offence taken Peasant- in a roundabout way thats what I mean- an attack is not breed related- but the way they were trained/brought up.

Not meant offence to ANY breed as I'm a true dog/animal person

peasant · 08-07-2007 8:29pm

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.

rugger · 08-07-2007 8:46pm

Check out www.anvilireland.ie - there are templates of letters that can be written to relevant TD's, and petition.

Tabitharose · 08-07-2007 8:55pm

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

heyjude · 08-07-2007 8:57pm

rugger wrote:

If 80 out of the last 100 shoplifting incidents were commited by people wearing hoodies- does that make 80% of hoodie wearing people shoplifters? Ban hoodies?:mad:

They have banned hoodies in some large shopping centres in England, because they claim a lot of 'anti-social behaviour(including shoplifting, is being carried out by hoodie wearers', so the principle doesn't just apply to dogs.

rugger · 08-07-2007 9:00pm

heyjude wrote:

They have banned hoodies in some large shopping centres in England, because they claim a lot of 'anti-social behaviour(including shoplifting, is being carried out by hoodie wearers', so the principle doesn't just apply to dogs.

Thats fair enough- in the wrong hands/ or on the wrong person it could be used to discuise identity

Did they go every persons house and removed hoodies from their cupboards and had them burned?

rugger · 08-07-2007 9:19pm

rugger wrote:

Check out www.anvilireland.ie - there are templates of letters that can be written to relevant TD's, and petition.

Sorry guys -

The template letter is possibly only being prepared - store the anvil site on your favourites - its only a matter of time before Miriam has things sorted.

There has already been a reply in todays 'Sunday's Times ' by Anvil, - this is the best way forward.

Anvil has already sussed out the 'politics' of this issue - One huge voice is better than lots of little 'squeeks'.

Go for the one HUGE voice...

Sonnenblumen · 08-07-2007 11:57pm

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.

rugger · 09-07-2007 6:16am

Sonneblumen, You said it- 'irresponsible dog owners'.
Many of these 'Rambo's' drive cars, and the same attitude they display in handling their dogs will be reflected when they get in behind the steering wheel. You might go tell the family members of drunk driving killings that people dont get mauled by cars.

I wish the bond of love, loyalty and trust that exists between me and my dog on any human being.

Annika30 · 09-07-2007 8:52am

DCC are just taking the easy way out instead of dealing with the real problem all the irresponsible dog owners out there that breed and keep dogs for the wrong reason. As well as that it shows a complete lack of knowledge about these affected breeds. I own a Ridgeback myself, you'd be hard pushed to find a nicer breed.

peasant · 09-07-2007 8:54am

Sonnenblumen wrote:

BTW, I've yet to read of any incidents of cars mauling/intimidating residents.

You're absolutely right !

Cars don't attack people on their own account.

Neither do dogs.

Once they're raised and trained properly, well socialised and kept under control. (and not provoked into attacking)

For far too long there are too many everyday cases of dog lovers blatantly breaching the regulations on dog control.

Whether it's "dog lovers" or "dog haters" breaching the laws on dog control ...it's still people doing so.

So why kill the one party that's innocent in all this, the dogs?

lphchild · 09-07-2007 10:33am

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.

peasant · 09-07-2007 10:48am

lphchild

what you're suggesting could already be done under existing legislation...just so far nobody has bothered enforcing it.

cormie · 09-07-2007 10:54am

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?

lphchild · 09-07-2007 10:59am

I'm not sure the current legislation fits the DCC's goals, as far as I know dogs are considered property under the Irish constitution and as such need particular legal machinations to be removed from someone, inevitably being costly and involving more manpower than is available. By going about it this way the DCC is using the only leverage they have - the properties they provide. This is a DCC directive, geographically specific and focused, not a state/constitutional issue. 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.

While they have overstepped into slight histrionics when pushing for this to be implemented countrywide, I'd imagine that other city councils, for the same reasons outlined above, will follow suit, hopefully though there will be a more cooperative approach with regard for the welfare of the animals themselves, by getting the DSPCA or similar involved, and to be honest I think that's what the welfare groups should be pushing for rather than arguing against the actual action. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the situation as it stands with regard mistreated highly bred dogs on council properties can be allowed to continue.

peasant · 09-07-2007 11:01am

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.

cormie · 09-07-2007 11:08am

Thanks, that's ridiculous. I don't even have a dog but I'm against all forms of animal cruelty and this just takes the biscuit. I don't even agree with putting dogs down for biting people.

Arghhh:mad:

Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

Comments