Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

nesf

aare wrote:

That tends to suggest that they would grab at this possibility then, as a chance to back down from an impossible stance and save face, while achieving a new degree of control:

That's what I'm reading it as, combined with a little media stunt showing that "they're trying to make a difference". I can't see them implementing a blanket ban because of all the little grannies with their staffies on the front of the papers in that case.

Legally however, they can do it.

aare

nesf wrote:

That's what I'm reading it as, combined with a little media stunt showing that "they're trying to make a difference". I can't see them implementing a blanket ban because of all the little grannies with their staffies on the front of the papers in that case.

Legally however, they can do it.

I totally agree with you. Right now the best approach is not sentimentality but hard nosed political realism...

I also don't think there would be any harm in dog owners arming themselves with such items as Doctors notes attesting to the unreasonable psychological and emotional distress that would be caused by having to kill their best friend, and written Police confirmation of regular break ins etc for which the dog is the only deterrent/comfort.

Dyr

Sonnenblumen wrote:

, it is time that the authorities took more appropriate measures to curb the growing and aggravating issues of bad owners and dangerous dogs.

growing issue? I presume you're going to back that up with some kind of research or statistics on attacks in this country by the listed breeds or you'll just admit you're waffling off the top of your head based on what you've read in the papers.

dog wardens have failed??...what all six of them or whatever in the greater dublin area? The authorities have never put any resources into animal welfare in this country yet they've failed? failed would implied that they've actually tried.

To quote ned flanders parents "we've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of ideas" :rolleyes:

Sonnenblumen

Bambi wrote:

growing issue? I presume you're going to back that up with some kind of research or statistics on attacks in this country by the listed breeds or you'll just admit you're waffling off the top of your head based on what you've read in the papers.

dog wardens have failed??...what all six of them or whatever in the greater dublin area? The authorities have never put any resources into animal welfare in this country yet they've failed? failed would implied that they've actually tried.

To quote ned flanders parents "we've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of ideas" :rolleyes:

In the first instance it is the responsibility of dog owners to take care of their 'pets' (some breeds would really stretch the term) but also have a responsibility to protect the public from any harm, annoyance, inconvenience, threat etc. There are plenty of cases where the owners have failed.

One doesn't need to read newspapers to find evidence, there is plenty of everyday evidence to be seen first hand. Owners have patently failed most if not all tests. Fundamentally some breeds are being prohibited from certain environments, in some instances some persons should also be shown the door.

In the meantime, the harsh reality is that there have been too many attacks and too much disharmony caused by irresponsible owners and particular breeds. It is probably easier and more efficient to prohibit specific breeds from specific environs rather than the more onerous and expensive route of assessing an individual's suitability to be a 'pet' owner.

I am sorry for responible owners of these 'unwanted' breeds but they should recognise that this problem has persisted for far too long, and it isn't right or fair that the right of a dog to live in a particular environment takes precedence over the rights of a person. That would be cartoon logic.

aare

I take all your points Sonnenblumen, but, in truth there is really no reason to suppose that the ratio of dog attacks has increased in recent years, nor that the quality or care and responsible ownership has decreased.

Both stayed about the same, allowing for the fact that we have a less pedestrian society than even 20 years ago, so that a lot of public areas are less "supervised".

That may make a slight difference...

The only thing that has really changed is the focus of media attention and public opinion, and while that can sometimes be stalled for a while it can never really be stopped until it has run it's course.

So all this thread should really be about is urgent damage limitation.

A lot of dogs could get killed and a lot of people could be emotionally destroyed (Not a problem? Check the Coolock/Artane "crime wave" that clustered over a decade after Stardust, then tell me emotional devastation is "not a problem" for the wider society.) by having to hand them over for destruction.

Let's try to minimise that shall we?

peasant

Sonnenblumen wrote:

It is probably easier and more efficient to prohibit specific breeds from specific environs rather than the more onerous and expensive route of assessing an individual's suitability to be a 'pet' owner.

It may be easier, more efficient and probably even quite popular ...it still isn't right.
The animal is the innocent party.

There will be cases where certain individual dogs have been so badly treated and "trained" that they do pose an actual danger and will be beyond rehabilitation. But for every one of these cases there will be countless others where the dog (and its owner) has done nothing wrong whatsoever other than be of a "listed" breed.

I stick to my point from the original thread and maintain:

A blanket ban on certain breeds (based on nothing but breed) is nothing else but the animal equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

It is just NOT RIGHT

I do understand DCC's predicament with anti-social dog owners and that they have to do "something about it". But laws already exist to deal with this. They should get those enforced.

gurramok

Just to add, i come from a council estate where many people own many types of dogs, cats, horses etc.
(And yes i am talking about roughest areas with DCC housing as they do exist)

Bad owners(the scum type) are the problem, they need to be targeted and prevented from having an animal in the first place.
On enforcement, it doesn't exist and has never existed.

They(authorities), struggled to implement the horsing legislation that was implemented a while back. Way back when horses were attempted to be rounded up in my area, the scum just burned out the jeeps and horse carriages that were lined up to take their horses away.

Their horses weren't touched since!!

The resources are just not there to get wardens into the roughest of areas, it was and is just not worth the hassle for them so the problem still persists.

Same goes for dog licensing, its just not enforced. If the gardai cannot foot patrol a rough area in sufficient numbers, how can dog wardens be expected to do the same on their own?!

Dog wardens are not going to try to take a dog away without protection for themselves!
The councillors know this(ya man on the radio mentioned earlier wont admit the real reason for lack of action on the issue), its a social issue and is not limited to animals.

Same analogy can go for the fireworks legislation, an absolute joke. the authorities couldn't be arsed tackling something that is so widespread in the roughest of areas as its not worth the hassle to them.

If they enforce existing laws targeting bad owners in the first place, it will go a long way to manage 'dangerous breeds'.

Anyone wanna a bet that this time next year, this new 'ban' will be forgotten and nothing will have changed, you will see the usual number of scum parading their bred to be dangerous animals on the streets?...I do.

peasant

Gurramok

Fully agree with your post.

The one danger with this ban proposal from DCC is that it might actually catch on nationwide (what with the media hype about "maulings" and "savagings") and before we know it old Grannies really WILL HAVE their only companion taken away to be destroyed, while the skangers in the rough estates just laugh and parade their dogs around.

nesf

peasant wrote:

The one danger with this ban proposal from DCC is that it might actually catch on nationwide (what with the media hype about "maulings" and "savagings") and before we know it old Grannies really WILL HAVE their only companion taken away to be destroyed, while the skangers in the rough estates just laugh and parade their dogs around.

It won't. Rural people actually vote.

To be blunt.

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote:

Gurramok

Fully agree with your post.

The one danger with this ban proposal from DCC is that it might actually catch on nationwide (what with the media hype about "maulings" and "savagings") and before we know it old Grannies really WILL HAVE their only companion taken away to be destroyed, while the skangers in the rough estates just laugh and parade their dogs around.

Perhaps a precedent has been set by DCC in sofaras having decided to ban specific breeds, and if for whatever unfortunate reason a person/child is attacked by one of these breeds, the State will be liable for failing to protect the victim. Up to now, it is the pet owner who is burdened with the legal responsibility. The ban will mean that ultimate liability will rest with DCC etc and it is probably for that very reason, that the ban will take effect.

A person's socio-economic group is irrelevant and bad owners are bad owners no matter where or how they live. I see guys in good areas flaunt the dog control law in public parks. For example, I do not like the idea of sharing a walkway with an approaching owner and his two roaming Alsatians or Rottweilers.

Sometimes people can make choices, sometimes people's rights are abused but sometimes the State must determine new groundrules, eg Smoking Ban.

rugger

I think instead of just ranting about the legalities, emotional attachment and civil rights, we should look at coming up with alternatives/solutions to the existing problems

1. If its true that there are only 3 dog wardens in DCC then there lies the first problem- solution- employ more wardens

2. If they weregoing to make the manpower available to go from house to house doing inspections, they have the manpower to do the following-
a. Do a complete survey as to the conditions the dog is kept in
b. Test their aggresive/passive behaviour to strangers, other dogs
c. Test the owner on general pet knowledge
d. See if the dog has a bad/good history in the neighborhood
e. Trace background of the dog/kennels/breeders vs Puppy farms etc
Use these results to set up a points system and grade dogs on this points system

An action group should be set up if a memeber of the public report any misconduct regarding dofs and the public should be involved and encouraged to report any such misconduct. This way these yobs who use their dogs as intimidatory tools would be identified and this would make life easier for for the general, dog loving dog owner

rugger

nesf wrote:

It won't. Rural people actually vote.

To be blunt.

Yes, people vote, but they were cute enough to wait till just after the elections for this curve ball, knowing full well that animal lovers make up a big portion of the voters they target.
This loonacy was actioned without any consultation with ANY animal rights (or even human rights) groups. It was not thought out in detail, the enforcing of these laws in itself will open a can of worms.
The current laws are quite enough to keep a lid on things but the Councils FAILED to even enforce the simple, existing laws. They created a monster and dont know how to deal with it

nesf

rugger wrote:

Yes, people vote, but they were cute enough to wait till just after the elections for this curve ball, knowing full well that animal lovers make up a big portion of the voters they target.

Eh, the council aren't elected in general elections. If it was planned around local elections it'd have happened a while back to be fair.

rugger wrote:

This loonacy was actioned without any consultation with ANY animal rights (or even human rights) groups. It was not thought out in detail, the enforcing of these laws in itself will open a can of worms.
The current laws are quite enough to keep a lid on things but the Councils FAILED to even enforce the simple, existing laws. They created a monster and dont know how to deal with it

I don't disagree. This makes it either an extremely effective political stunt or a complete mess. I'd put money on the former, judging from the speech on Q&A by that councillor.

Gillie

rugger wrote:

b. Test their aggresive/passive behaviour to strangers, other dogs

This could prove difficult! Most dogs will bark if a stranger approaches the door and quite frankly that's what I expect/want from my dogs. In fairness once I answer the door they relax again.
The Warden may decide that the dog is being aggressive which it is but ffs its a dog protecting it's patch.

And how do you decide how aggressive a dog is! TBH i'd be more wary of a quiet dog than a loud boisterous (sp?) one!

peasant

This whole hysteria about "dangerous dogs " is a load of bull anyway.

Yes, there are certain individuals out there that treat, keep and use their dogs in a way which is totally out of order, but they are a small minority and could be dealt with under existing laws.

For centuries man and dog have been living with each other in more or less perfect harmony and a good understanding for each other.

It is only a recent phenomenon that society seems to have gone totally out of touch with their dogs.

A few years ago, you simply wouldn't think about just strolling on someone's property if there was a dog around ...you KNEW that that dog was there to do a job and that it might bite you if you progressed uninvetedly. That was a fact of life that was just accepted.

These days, people already go into "dangerous dog" hysterics if a perfectly safely contained dog (on a lead or behind a fence) only so much as looks at them the wrong way.

Every dog above a certain size and beyond "cuddly looks" all of a sudden is a potential "child killer".

Where did this hysteria come from?

On the other side of the scales dogs are being made into something they definetly aren't ...accessories.

You see them peeking out of celebrities handbags, people dress them up in silly clothes and jewelry, breeds go in and out of fashion like clothes and there are a lot of poor little things out ther e whose life has nothing to do anymore with a typical dogs life. They're not allowed to get dirty, they can't run free, they aren't allowed mix and mingle with their own kind ..they have become living Tamagotchis.


Are we as a society going to address these extremes? Are we going to do something to return to a healthy and natural man - dog relationship?

Like hell we are ... we just blame certain breed of dogs for all our problems.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Just getting back to basic's for a moment.

But this really does come down to the authorities not enforcing the law's.

I don't know how old you guys are, I'm 41. But I remember as a kid you dare not let your dog out without a collar and ID tag, plus a licence otherwise it would be impounded.

And I grew up in Ballymun, so if these law's could once be enforced whats the damn problem now?.

I remember regularly seeing the dark bull van's with big white D.S.P.C.A. writing down the side's looking for strays.

Anyone else remember those day's?.

Dyr

Sonnenblumen wrote:

There are plenty of cases where the owners have failed.

One doesn't need to read newspapers to find evidence,

the harsh reality is that there have been too many attacks and too much disharmony caused by irresponsible owners and particular breeds.

As requested before: Can you back ANY of those assertions with cases, research or figures? Put up or shut up time. The sky in your "harsh reality" might not be the same colour as everyones elses

Sonnenblumen

Bambi wrote:

As requested before: Can you back ANY of those assertions with cases, research or figures? Put up or shut up time. The sky in your "harsh reality" might not be the same colour as everyones elses

Take some time out, and stop the nonsense. Do your own research. No one besides you seems to be in dispute about the facts (not assertions), that attacks have taken place. There is clearly little or low level awareness here of many incidents over recent years.

If you do not recall or do not wish to recall, well sorry, I'm not going to start.

Its no wonder dogs have problems!!:mad: :mad:

peasant

Sonnenblumen wrote:

There is clearly little or low level awareness here of many incidents over recent years.

Well ...enlighten us then ...

rugger

Gillie wrote:

This could prove difficult! Most dogs will bark if a stranger approaches the door and quite frankly that's what I expect/want from my dogs. In fairness once I answer the door they relax again.
The Warden may decide that the dog is being aggressive which it is but ffs its a dog protecting it's patch.

And how do you decide how aggressive a dog is! TBH i'd be more wary of a quiet dog than a loud boisterous (sp?) one!

Hi Gillie
I'm glad we're actually discussing these points, its a start.
I was thinking more along the lines of being tested at a neutral venue, maybe the park or even the Warden's office. You're right, dogs would/should be inclined to protect their own...

rugger

Mairt wrote:

Just getting back to basic's for a moment.

But this really does come down to the authorities not enforcing the law's.

I don't know how old you guys are, I'm 41. But I remember as a kid you dare not let your dog out without a collar and ID tag, plus a licence otherwise it would be impounded.

And I grew up in Ballymun, so if these law's could once be enforced whats the damn problem now?.

I remember regularly seeing the dark bull van's with big white D.S.P.C.A. writing down the side's looking for strays.

Anyone else remember those day's?.

Good point Mairt

golden

There are more kids killed on the roads than the so called dangerous breeds perhaps they should ban the vehicles as well while they are at it!!!

Glowing

golden wrote:

There are more kids killed on the roads than the so called dangerous breeds perhaps they should ban the vehicles as well while they are at it!!!

That has to be the worst argument ever. People die falling down the stairs, should we ban that too? What about surgeons, oh yeah they've caused quite a few deaths in their time eh? :rolleyes:

Dyr

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Take some time out, and stop the nonsense. Do your own research. No one besides you seems to be in dispute about the facts (not assertions), that attacks have taken place. There is clearly little or low level awareness here of many incidents over recent years.

If you do not recall or do not wish to recall, well sorry, I'm not going to start.

Its no wonder dogs have problems!!:mad: :mad:

What im supposed to be presenting data on dogs that didnt attack people? lol

you're the one making the assertion that

"the harsh reality is that there have been too many attacks and too much disharmony caused by irresponsible owners and particular breeds."

so it's up to YOU provide the facts to back those assertions up. Your assertion is that attacks/incidents by particular breeds have reached some unacceptable level. Now back it up with reliable research or stastistics or admit you're waffling, Either is fine with me.

No one besides you seems to be in dispute about the facts

there are no facts to dispute. You havent produced any facts. Opinion is not fact no matter how hard you want it to be. And most people here seem to disagree with your opinion.

Dyr

Glowing wrote:

That has to be the worst argument ever. People die falling down the stairs, should we ban that too? What about surgeons, oh yeah they've caused quite a few deaths in their time eh? :rolleyes:

Umm..its not argument. It's an application of the logic behind this legislation to other issues in oder to highlight how ridiculous that logic is.

cr1272

I believe there is a peaceful demonstration against the ban this Friday (the 13th ) outside the Dublin City Council offices on Wood Quay at 2pm. It is being organised by Dog Training Ireland, and endorsed by ANVIL, ISPCA, DSPCA & AFAR.

More about that here: http://www.dogtrainingireland.ie/news_demo_13072007.php

There is also a petition to sign on the ANVIL website : http://www.petitiononline.com/anvil999/petition.html

golden

Bambi wrote:

Umm..its not argument. It's an application of the logic behind this legislation to other issues in oder to highlight how ridiculous that logic is.

Thats correct Bambi

Vas_Guy

I emailed John Gormley on the matter this is the reply i got:

11 July 2007

A Chara,

I have been asked by Mr. John Gormley T.D., Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government to refer to your recent letter
regarding Dublin City Council's recently announced ban on dangerous dogs from
properties owned by the Council.

Responsibility for this matter rests entirely with the Council.
However, to be of assistance to you I have made enquiries and I understand
from the Council that it has introduced a ban on the following breeds of
dogs within its housing estates and flat complexes, from 1st July 2007.
The breeds listed are:

American Pit Bull Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
English Pit Bull Terrier
Bull Mastiff
Doberman Pinscher
German Shepherd (Alsatian)
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Rottweiler
Japanese Akita
Japanese Tosa

When tenants sign their tenancy agreement (from now on) it will state
that the above list of dogs are banned. Those tenants who are currently
living in Council property can be brought under this condition by
virtue of the fact that the tenancy agreement which they signed, states
that Dublin City Council has an obligation to ensure that their tenants
live in a safe environment.

In addition, it might be noted that Article 83 (1) (j) of the Housing
Regulations, 1980 (S.I. No. 296 of 1980) provides that "where the house
is let by a housing authority which is a county borough corporation *,
the tenant shall not keep any poultry, pigs or other animals (other
than domestic pets which are not likely to create a nuisance or become a
source of annoyance) on the premises without the consent of the
authority."

Yours sincerely,


________________
Eddie Kiernan
Private Secretary

cr1272

Vas_Guy wrote:

Responsibility for this matter rests entirely with the Council.

Sounds like buck-passing to me.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cr1272 wrote:

I believe there is a peaceful demonstration against the ban this Friday (the 13th ) outside the Dublin City Council offices on Wood Quay at 2pm. It is being organised by Dog Training Ireland, and endorsed by ANVIL, ISPCA, DSPCA & AFAR.

More about that here: http://www.dogtrainingireland.ie/news_demo_13072007.php

There is also a petition to sign on the ANVIL website : http://www.petitiononline.com/anvil999/petition.html

Thanks for the link to the petition.

I've included it in a group email to all my contacts.