Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

racso1975

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

Dyr

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.

explain why they're wholly unsuitable.


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

cormie

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.

peasant

cormie wrote:

Ah, well that makes it slightly better

No, cormie, it doesn't !

This idea of banning certain breeds of dog (and thus condemning them to death) is fundamentally wrong.

Any dog (in fact any pet) can be mistreated, kept in unsuitable conditions, beaten, starved, neglected or (in case of dogs) be made into a weapon.

How on earth is any of this the animals' fault ??
Why is the animal being punished?
And what is the justification behind punishing all dogs that happen to be of a certain breed, regardless of how well they're kept or trained?

Makes no sense at all ...

Bex01

Im so angry at this ban on 'dangerous dogs'. I own a German Shepherd and she is the most friendly dog ever.
It sounds like Hitler is back in power and has decided he doesn't like certain breeds of dog so lets just ban them. What a joke!!

cormie

peasant wrote:

No, cormie, it doesn't !

This idea of banning certain breeds of dog (and thus condemning them to death) is fundamentally wrong.

Any dog (in fact any pet) can be mistreated, kept in unsuitable conditions, beaten, starved, neglected or (in case of dogs) be made into a weapon.

How on earth is any of this the animals' fault ??
Why is the animal being punished?
And what is the justification behind punishing all dogs that happen to be of a certain breed, regardless of how well they're kept or trained?

Makes no sense at all ...

I agree, but I only meant it was slightly better in that I thought it was ALL of these dogs in the whole country at first and that if it just meant that dogs in cramped conditions had to be moved to a more spacious area then it would be positive in the long run but not now (emotional suffering for the dog and the owner having to be departed). I don't agree with any dogs being killed at all. As I said, even if they have bitten somebody. I'm against that in all situations. 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.

peasant

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?

cormie

peasant wrote:

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.

-Wrong

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.

-Wrong

I agree with you fully, and yes it's ridiculous the whole thing. It should be done on a house by house basis and analysis, every house in the country, not just DCC properties.

peasant

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.

cormie

I agree. There:p Wont get myself into any more trouble. lol.

yeah, a ban on dogs is ridiculous and what is needed is animal rights for definite.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Anyone listen to Gerry Ryan (2FM) this morning?.

Seem's like there's alot of opposition to this by professional animal welfare bodies.

corkimp

If they know of any dogs in the area they believe to be a risk, they should act on those dogs. They have to take into account most people genuinely love their dog, train them, socialise them and care for them totally while others don't give a rats a**e about them once they growl and bark aggresively to protect their home.
Most rented accomodation won't allow dogs now - I had to ring around 10 houses when I was moving to find someone who is ok with me brining in a puppy to the house. They have to look into in more and learn more about the breeds and how people treat their animals. Even the Uk with the RSPCA monitor it well enough and need the public to assist them. Why don't they help the SPCA's around the country organise an education evening free to the public on the care and training of dogs? The DCC should first get the animal welfare groups to research best ways to sort he problem then taking the "all these dogs are bad" view.

lphchild

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.

peasant

lphchild

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.

That list is totally arbitrary

Take the German Shepherd for example. In the whole world, the GSD is THE most common breed with the highest number of individual dogs out there.

These dogs all have diverse "jobs". From simple family pet, to sniffer dog, to guide dog, to helper dog, to therapy dog, to police/army dog.

The same breed that can be trained to kill on command (army sentry dogs) can be trained to assist a handicapped person, lead a blind person, give comfort to patients in long term care or to just bring joy to a family.

And you're (or rather DCC are) trying to convince us that all GSD's are "dangerous" ??

Absolute rubbish !

By the same argument can take every other breed of that list as well, as there are plenty of examples of dogs of those breed doing absolutely peaceful jobs every day.

golden

lphchild


Quote:
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.


If the DCC took that approach then ALL domesticated dogs would be dangerous as the domesticated dogs originated from wolves.

Mr. Presentable

peasant wrote:

Any dog (in fact any pet) can be mistreated, kept in unsuitable conditions, beaten, starved, neglected or (in case of dogs) be made into a weapon.

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.

peasant

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 ...

Our man in Havana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1trl1FMUw&mode=related&search=

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/

Dyr

lphchild wrote:

I would have to generalise,

Yes, you would and you'd have to generalise quite a lot because your viewpoint is based only a stereotype you hold of


small inner city flats, and houses without the proper facilities

one law for the rich one for the poor eh? :rolleyes:

lphchild

peasant wrote:

lphchild

That list is totally arbitrary

Take the German Shepherd for example. In the whole world, the GSD is THE most common breed with the highest number of individual dogs out there.
...

And you're (or rather DCC are) trying to convince us that all GSD's are "dangerous" ??

Absolute rubbish !

By the same argument can take every other breed of that list as well, as there are plenty of examples of dogs of those breed doing absolutely peaceful jobs every day.

I completely agree GSD's are fantastic, I have had one myself, the problem is they are potentially dangerous, you point it out yourself.

Again, its not the dogs fault and all dogs are individuals and but they are in many ways a product of their environment. However, unfortunately this works both ways and there are certain environmental elements - scumbags - on DCC properties who are irresponsibly handling and training their dogs, specifically breeds which are dangerous by reputation and potential.

It's a social problem, and probably the dogs are going to take the brunt of the repercussions, I'd rather however, the bitter pill be swallowed now - that the dogs are removed from the control of these people, and the environments they are in - and the ban on them being introduced be enforced by the DCC on their properties, for future dogs' sake.

The breeding of pedigree dogs which is starting to accelerate in the north dublin inner city is a response to the market forces, which in this area demand the types of dogs listed, and as a by-product of the drastic step the DCC is having to take, hopefully the full repercussions of nipping this indiscriminate breeding will be an additional positive outcome, while not making up for the terrible price some dogs will have to pay for their misuse by scumbags.

peasant

lphchild

Then lets' enforce existing legislation regarding the control of dogs and create new one that recognises basic animal rights ... but NOT ban an arbitrary amount of breeds.

Your anti-social skanger that has his pitbull taken away will get a boxer tomorrow and mistreat that ...where are we then?

Banning boxers?


And just because it seemingly hasn't been said enough times already ...all dogs are potentially dangerous if you treat them the wrong way.

Really ...all dogs... even Cockers, Poodles or Shi-Tzus.

Let's just ban all dogs, shall we?

lphchild

Bambi wrote:

Yes, you would and you'd have to generalise quite a lot because your viewpoint is based only a stereotype you hold of

small inner city flats, and houses without the proper facilities

one law for the rich one for the poor eh? :rolleyes:

I LIVE in the north inner city - right in the middle, and am active in the community... Just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean in some instances it isn't true! If you can justify having a full grown boxer or any of the dogs listed, in a 3rd floor flat, living on a balcony, in one of the DCC flat complexes in the north inner city, I will cede the point gladly. I'm not getting drawn into a debate on the social disadvantages of north inner city, however, there's no point in burying our heads in the sand that the rise of the use of dogs, classified as dangerous, as both gangster trophies and weapons amongst scumbag elements in this area, of whom some may be residing in DCC provided accomodation, ill suited to large dogs, does not exist.

peasant

lphchild wrote:

I LIVE in the north inner city - right in the middle, and am active in the community... Just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean in some instances it isn't true! If you can justify having a full grown boxer or any of the other dogs listed, in a 3rd floor flat, living on a balcony, in one of the DCC flat complexes in the north inner city, I will cede the point gladly. I'm not getting drawn into a debate on the social disadvantages of north inner city, however, there's no point in burying our heads in the sand that the rise of the use of dogs, classified as dangerous, as both gangster trophies and weapons amongst scumbag elements in this area, of whom some may be residing in DCC provided accomodation, ill suited to large dogs, does not exist.

see ...

If these types are acting the maggot outside, with their dogs out of control, existing legislation allows for confiscation (and if necessary even destruction) of that dog and for punishement of the owner. (Why isn't anyone enforcing that law?)

If we had law that covered the minimum requirements for keeping animls (as in an animal rights law) that would cover the shennanigans inside., as well as unqualified breeding in unsuitable conditions.

No need for a blanket ban.


And definetly no need to take an old grannies only companion away who just so happens to be a "listed" dog.

lphchild

peasant wrote:

lphchild

Then lets' enforce existing legislation regarding the control of dogs and create new one that recognises basic animal rights ... but NOT ban an arbitrary amount of breeds.

Yeh, but that entails going back to government and we know how speedy and helpful towards animal rights they are! :rolleyes: The DCC have a problem, the law as it stands makes the enforcement of what little animal legislation there is a police matter. The DCC have tried working it though this channel, but the will isn't there, and the problem is getting urgent, they have taken the bull by the horns. It's not ideal, it patently unfair in some cases, but better its tackled now than when it's too late and a reactionary bill is passed by government which totally dismisses any element of animal welfare. It's a problem the DCC have and they are implementing their specific solution to a probelm which exists on their properties...

peasant

Well ...excuse me ...but who the F*** are DCC to just go out there and order the certain destruction of hundreds of dogs in one sweeping move, regardless of the circumstances?

You on the "list" ..you dead !

Will they be wearing long black leather coats, dark hats and hobnail boots when they come to take the dogs away ?

If the police doesn't see fit to help them to their rights ...then sue the police ...but leave innocent animals out of it.

Our man in Havana

lphchild wrote:

Yeh, but that entails going back to government and we know how speedy and helpful towards animal rights they are! :rolleyes: The DCC have a problem, the law as it stands makes the enforcement of what little animal legislation there is a police matter. The DCC have tried working it though this channel, but the will isn't there, and the problem is getting urgent, they have taken the bull by the horns. It's not ideal, it patently unfair in some cases, but better its tackled now than when it's too late and a reactionary bill is passed by government which totally dismisses any element of animal welfare. It's a problem the DCC have and they are implementing their specific solution to a probelm which exists on their properties...

With attitudes like that you are right nothing will change!

What we want to see is the law enforced & not a blanket ban & therefore mass destruction of perfectly innocent dogs! - Now DCC can ban dogs from their property but why try to get these dogs banned country wide?

As I have said before - we ban these dogs - then a boxer/collie/westie attacks a kid & causes serious harm/death do we then ban these dogs as well????

We are talking about a tiny amount of serious dog attacks - look at the youtube link I posted up - in America they have around 9 deaths of children caused by dogs a YEAR where as 3 children a day are killed by a PARENT! The statistics are TINY!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1trl1FMUw&mode=related&search= - watch it for yourself.

Glowing

I can't really decide who's got the argument here, but I am certain on one thing. No amount of dogs lives are worth that of a child.

I'm an avid dog lover myself - and don't condone the idea of euthenising thousands of dogs for the sake of this blanket ban. The problem needs to be tackled from the root - why not make it difficult for these breeds to be owned by anyone other than a licenced, trained owner? Bring in huge fines for anyone found with an unlicenced dog etc. Surely this would be a better way to tackle the issue? There need to be more stringent regulations that determine who own these dogs and why .....

lphchild

peasant wrote:

Well ...excuse me ...but who the F*** are DCC to just go out there and order the certain destruction of hundreds of dogs in one sweeping move, regardless of the circumstances?

You on the "list" ..you dead !

Will they be wearing long black leather coats, dark hats and hobnail boots when they come to take the dogs away ?

If the police doesn't see fit to help them to their rights ...then sue the police ...but leave innocent animals out of it.

The DCC are the landlords responsible for the safety of their tenants. What do you think prompted all this? I'm sure no-one wants the destruction of any animals, I for one don't, but the proliferation of dangerous breeds of dogs in densely populated areas, and within ill-suited DCC complexes is a disaster waiting to happen.

People have a choice - re-home the dog, adopt one of the many not on the list who would otherwise be put down - why do you need a dog from the list in a city? I'm sorry but a few have spoilt it for the many, and the risk to the public as it currently exists is not worth taking in my opinion.

peasant

Well, well, well ...

Either they changed their tune or the initial report in the Times got it wrong.

Listened to councillor soandso on "the last word" and what he said sounded a lot more moderate than a ban.

Seemingly existing rental contracts already specify that you're not allowed to keep certain dogs, especially not large dogs.

Futhermore the councillor mentioned a consultation process that owners of these dogs would have to go through

And lastly he pointed out that there definitly would be no cases of taking away old grannies only companion, as long as those dogs hadn't come to attention negatively.

So basically, theyre just trying to enforce the existing law (and their existing rental contracts)

So why the big hullaballoo?


The cynic in me suspects that his is just the first step ... the blanket ban will follow at a later time.

peasant

lphchild wrote:

People have a choice - re-home the dog, adopt one of the many not on the list who would otherwise be put down - why do you need a dog from the list in a city? I'm sorry but a few have spoilt it for the many, and the risk to the public as it currently exists is not worth taking in my opinion.

Just one last point:

The risk to the public does not consist of someone owning a "listed" dog. The risk is what that owner does (or rather doesn't) do with that dog, i.e. keep it properly and keep it under control.

The risk that such an irresponsible owner poses to the public will not change by one iota just because that owner now has a different dog.