Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote:

Well ...enlighten us then ...

You mean to say that you are not aware of any cases of dogs attacking children/people particularly attacks by some of the banned breeds? Do you not know about the recent case only a few weeks ago when in a housing estate where two rottweilers escaped (owner at work) and savagely attacked a five year old child? Do a Google for detials of this and other similar attacks!!

Needless to say the dogs were put down almost immediately.

The facts are there are new regulations whereby certain dog breeds have been banned, hopefully this ban will be extended and no matter how much you like, love, or work your dog, the regulations are in situ. For some people life will get better now that the threat and worry of dangerous dogs in the area i sreally being tackled. Well done DCC.

Real dog lovers will support the ban that outlaws the insane situation of keeping such dogs in often poor areas in poor conditions etc.

Dependent pet lovers can make alternative choices and tha's fine.

alexdenby6

ok mate

when will you understand that the breed of a dog has absolutely no affect n whether it is dangerous or not.

it is irresponsible owners, that see a large and powerful dog and obtain it with the intention of rearing it roughly and neglecting it so it becomes nasty and dangerous. it is scum like these people that cause these problems. these dogs are chosen because they are big strong and have teeth(like all dogs lol) thatcan inflict harm(like all dogs). all of these eleven breeds are if reared correctly with love trining and proper socialising with people children and other dogs are wonderful pets, gentle and calm around children. i have a german shepherd (the same one as deaddonkeys one) and she is pefect with children. i have never seen an aggressive german shepherd, rottweiler dober man pitbull staffordshire terrier mastiff or any others. a recetn encounter with a n english matiff at the dogs day out had the dog lying on its belly with its paws flapping around in the air asking to be played with. i hope this makes the FACTS clearer for you. mate. deaddonkeys little brother.

aare

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Real dog lovers will support the ban that outlaws the insane situation of keeping such dogs in often poor areas in poor conditions etc

Steady on!

I would be the first to agree that certain breed have an higher potential to cause serious injury than others...BUT...I feel certain that potential relates to such factors as breed temperament, jaw size, etc...

NOT:
"Income level of owner"

Also, on the whole, "real dog lovers" TEND to avoid supporting the wholesale slaughter of ten of thousands of dogs...really they do...;)

peasant

Sonnenblumen

For the n-th time (the short version):

-Just because some Rottweilers attacked a child doesn't mean that all Rottweilers are dangerous.

- Dogs that are properly bred, trained and kept do not attack people just like that ... Rottweiler or no Rottweiler

- Removing all Rottweilers (and any other breed that you don't like) from the face of the earth does not mean that dog attacks will never ever happen again

...Because ...


It is ALWAYS the owner who's at fault, not the dog ...whatever breed, mix or mongrel that dog may be.


As for the type of owner who deliberatly mistreat their dogs and use them as weapons ...take one (type of) dog away from them and they will soon find another one to mistreat.

So, if you really think that this ban is going to change anything for the better, I'm sorry to say, you are delusional.

Responsible people will lose their cherished, loved and well treated dogs and the scum will go for something else instead.

the_syco

Alsations are going to be put down? Thats them blind people f*cked! Lets see (no pun intended) them walk around with no guide dog, eh, eh?

Oh wait! Sonnenblumen think that they are dangerous. Sure. They are. They do a very dangerous thing. The lead the blind around. Please explain how they are all violent?

alexdenby6

peoplke lost in the mountains as well, search and rescue dogs are often german shepherds.

alexdenby6

i think this picture shows how dangerous these dogs aren't. http://www.argon.org/~roderick/photo/old/1968+%20youth%20scans/06.%20baby%20walks%20doberman-l.jpg

nesf

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.

It is an argument.

It's also a fallacious argument but that's beside the point.

aare

As an aside, I am personally TOTALLY bewildered by the inclusion of German Shepherds.

They are used as Police Dogs and Guide dogs precisely BECAUSE they are even tempered and easy to train...

They are big, they look a bit "wolfish", but appearances mean nothing. They are genetically further from the wolf than a border collie is...

nesf

aare wrote:

As an aside, I am personally TOTALLY bewildered by the inclusion of German Shepherds.

They are used as Police Dogs and Guide dogs precisely BECAUSE they are even tempered and easy to train...

They are big, they look a bit "wolfish", but appearances mean nothing. They are genetically further from the wolf than a border collie is...

They are also easy to train to be guard dogs and to be aggressive towards new people.

As an aside, I know of one unfortunate incident where an Alsatian kept as a family dog (not trained to be a guard dog or anything) was playing with a child in the back garden and a strange kid hopped over the back wall looking for a ball and the dog attacked the stranger. Could have been nervousness, or a perceived attack on a kid or territorial but it is an unfortunate tendency of dogs to be territorial beasts in terms of their "family and home" that people tend to forget. The kids wasn't hurt but if the owner hadn't gotten out there quickly it could have been worse.


As a further aside again, was reading an article in Scientific American about the "slant" that can be put on things. A newspaper headline read: "Plucky terrier defends children from two pitbulls" telling of an incident where a terrier and a bunch of kids were playing when two pitbulls ran up growling, the terrier growled back and went towards the pitbulls and the kids ran off while the two pitbulls attacked the terrier. It was remarked that (possibly) a more truthful headline would have read: "Kids run away while terrier is attacked by pitbulls", alluding the far more likely situation where the terrier was the sole focus of the aggression of the pitbulls.

aare

Ok...

I will raise you...

The saddest case of all I ever came across was a lovely dog, with a responsible owner, who got loose for the first time in the ten years of his life and seriously injured the face of a child.

He was so genuinely good natured and obedient he jumped up on the table and sat perfectly still, on command, to be killed.

You cannot generalise about anything.

He was a Boxer...not only not on the list, but recommended as the safest breed with children.

So can we get back to the topic of how to stop the Corpo killing thousands of dogs in a doomed attempt to look good to the media?

Sonnenblumen

AFAIK the ban apllies only to certain breeds in council estates or DCC owned properties. It does not mean the extermination of all breeds, but it prohibits the ownership in DCC areas. Therefore people need to take cognisance of the new regulations and choose accordingly. Obviously the changes are most significant for existing owners in DCC areas. Future dwellers, well the regs are the regs.

I do not know but I would suspect that most of the problems with the dangerous group (I do not agree with all but certainly most) are probably caused in DCC type areas. Certainly the stereotype is of owners from such areas. However I would not so disrespectful as most have been of such people. Most here seem to misread postings, others are selective in what they interpret. From the outset I've said, bad owners make bad dogs and it doesn't always (but probably largely) influenced by environment etc. I've also support DCC for the stance they've taken, for too long there have been too many problems with dogs. I'm not talking about dogs been let loose all day, most 'dog lovers/owners' would deny doing this but the truth is plain to see.

Most dog owners never did nothing or cared even less about dogs crapping on pavements etc etc. Peoples attitude to dogs is pretty much the Irish attitude to most things, take a chance for as long as I can, screw the rules/system I'll ignore it as long as possible before changing attitude/behaviour.

References to Guide Dogs within this debate is completely irrelevant for two obvious reasons. Love and training. The extraordinary levels of love, care, and training provided by dedicated foster owners to train such dogs who go on to become wonderful man friends. Most Irish people have a best a casual relationship with their pets, the welfare is miserable and the socio responsiblity would not tolerated in most European countries.

If Irish people were wonderful caring dog owners, we wouldn't have anything like the level of attacks we do, and we certainly wouldn't be having the ban.

The ban is good not just for people but also dogs.

nesf

aare wrote:

You cannot generalise about anything.

What? You can generalise about anything, it's just claims to truth from generalisations that are tricky.

aare wrote:

He was a Boxer...not only not on the list, but recommended as the safest breed with children.

Safe with children they know, similar to most breeds.

aare

Sonnenblumen wrote:

The ban is good not just for people but also dogs.

Isn't that a paraphrase of Josef Goebbels?

GET REAL...

Please...

Our man in Havana

GUYS ONE WARNING! I am sick of the arguments STAY ON TOPIC before I am forced to edit post - issue formal warnings or week long. month long or permanent BANS!

cotton

References to Guide Dogs within this debate is completely irrelevant for two obvious reasons. Love and training. The extraordinary levels of love, care, and training provided by dedicated foster owners to train such dogs who go on to become wonderful man friends.

Why can't this apply to other breeds??? I'd like to think that all breeds in foster homes get this if not near this level of care.
I know GSD's in one particular rescue get this & more. CALL have a standard & level of care is second to none. Also, several other rescues that deal with "dangerous breeds" along with other breeds.
Labradors (Guide Dogs) account for more bites than any other dog in this country. Go figure that one & get back to us.
As I've said before, I've 3 "dangerous x breeds" & one lovely golden lab. The lab is far the most grumpy one of the 4.

Sonnenblumen

cotton wrote:

Why can't this apply to other breeds??? I'd like to think that all breeds in foster homes get this if not near this level of care.
I know GSD's in one particular rescue get this & more. CALL have a standard & level of care is second to none. Also, several other rescues that deal with "dangerous breeds" along with other breeds.
Labradors (Guide Dogs) account for more bites than any other dog in this country. Go figure that one & get back to us.
As I've said before, I've 3 "dangerous x breeds" & one lovely golden lab. The lab is far the most grumpy one of the 4.

My last post on this topic and to finish with a quote that patently illustrates why there are problems with dogs in Ireland.

alexdenby6

explain to us why.

rugger

Sonnenblumen
You seem to stand by the DCC and their actions- fair enough you are entitled to your point of view.
So on the topic of the DCC-
How many dog wardens have they in Dublin? I've heard somewhere between 3 and 6. Lest say 6 to make it fair. Lets asy there are 6000 dogs in Dublin, that makes it 1 warden to 1000 dogs- who is failing here?

When was the last time someone got fined for not mussling their dogs? Who failed here?

Did you ever see a van with a big ugly 'dog warden' sign on the side?

Will they employ hundreds more wardens to envorce this law? If so, that comes straight from our pockets, so I'll be paying someones salary to kill a family member.

What if you bring my 'dangerous dog' to a neutral venue and throw him a pit with 5 other breeds and his tail almost falls off from wagging and excitement? Still wanna kill him?
What if at least 2 nights a week I come home and there are kids at the door wanting to play with, coz they often do and have great fun with him? Still wanna kill him?

The only solution is a 'case by case' analysis of each individual scenario

nesf

cotton wrote:

Labradors (Guide Dogs) account for more bites than any other dog in this country. Go figure that one & get back to us.

Aren't they the most popular dog in the country? More of a certain breed, combined with the tendency of people not to train dogs properly will mean that more bites will come from that breed.

Not that it invalidates your point or anything, but nobody who considers these issues in a serious manner takes dog bite statistics seriously. A lot of them aren't reported and most of the "identified breeds" are guesses tbh.

rugger

Found this on another website...

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events. Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies.

rugger

Hope I'm not out of order, but Ill warn you, so dont open the link if you dont like the sound of it. I loved it and went straight over to give my Staff the biggest hug ever- he thought I was nuts!!

Its a Dogs prayer...

http://www.staffies-at-home.co.uk/dogpages/dogsprayerpage.htm

Our man in Havana

If you look at the link I posted a few pages back - its has a lot of useful info about dog attacks etc.

These are some of the things that contribute to dog attacks

* Abuse
* Hunger/Starvation
* Confinement/Dogs chained up all day long.
* Fear
* Not spayed or neutered

How many times do we see the stories of bears in tiny cages turned mad from the torment of its daily life - why is it not the same for dogs?? My neighbours have 3 sheppards that are confined/chained up for 99% of their lives - I have reported this to my dog warden - often the dogs have no water & they are fed very little - in fact Jake & Sheba will come to the door begging for food every time they are off of the chain (we feed them & try to keep weight on them) Still waiting for the warden to show up! My dogs are kept in the house have a minimum of 3 runs a day today I think they had 8! They are fed & are a tad too well fed but we love our 10! I have jack crosses & a westie that are far nastier then my puppy rottie. Cassie is lovely with pets & people & adores next doors kids - poor mite is terrified of the new kittens they must be pure evil!

Rugger that link is lovely!

What I am most worried about is "if" they enforce this ban nationwide - which species is next? Should we ban all creatures that can bite?? If so thats my snakes, my cats, my iguanas, my rabbits, my hamsters??????

ALL DOGS ARE DANGEROUS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! All can bite & attack a child & cause serious harm or death! Why blame all dogs for a very few isolated incidences?? As Anvil says blame the deed not the breed!

sudzs

Haven't read through the whole thread but in case this wasn't posted yet....

http://www.irishdogs.ie/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2213&PID=11410#11410

There's a sample letter to send to DCC, John Gormley and anyone else you might think should be enlightened!

nesf

Bond-007 wrote:

How many times do we see the stories of bears in tiny cages turned mad from the torment of its daily life - why is it not the same for dogs?? My neighbours have 3 sheppards that are confined/chained up for 99% of their lives - I have reported this to my dog warden - often the dogs have no water & they are fed very little - in fact Jake & Sheba will come to the door begging for food every time they are off of the chain (we feed them & try to keep weight on them) Still waiting for the warden to show up! My dogs are kept in the house have a minimum of 3 runs a day today I think they had 8!

Off-topic but semi relevant to this thread. I agree completely that keeping dogs chained up/confined is bad but on the flip side, I think that dogs are better off being kept outdoors than indoors if possible (obviously in an urban area this isn't necessarily realistic). What are reasonable amount of space for dogs and at what point are they "confined"? My parents for example have a fenced in area in their back garden that's about 15 square feet in area and that's where the two dogs (Golden Retrievers) are generally if they're not on their daily walk/swim at the river or being fed. Would you consider that much area confinement? In a rural area where there's a lot of livestock it's almost a necessity to keep large dogs in, no matter how well trained they are. That and, back home there's usually some bitch in heat relatively close by and we don't want himself fathering any pups. That and my parents place backs onto the railway track and it's feasible that either of them could get over the ditch there, which would be a very bad thing.

I'm just curious as to what people think is confinement versus what people think is reasonable. Leaving a dog loose all the time isn't really an option for a lot of people.

Bond-007 wrote:

ALL DOGS ARE DANGEROUS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! All can bite & attack a child & cause serious harm or death!

Saying that all dogs are potentially dangerous might be a better way of phrasing it. People need to get into their heads that dogs aren't toys and have, for better or worse, a will and instincts of their own.

peasant

nesf wrote:

I'm just curious as to what people think is confinement versus what people think is reasonable

We have half an acre fenced in for the three of them. Occasionally they do wander off to follow a trail , sit under a bush in solitude or bark at the neighburs sheep for the millionth time ...but 90 % of the time, they're right there, just outside the back door looking in, or if we are outside as well, under our feet and in the way

So just because you have space doesn't mean that the dogs will use it all the time ...excercise (as in organised excercise where you actually demand some movement from your dog) is more important than space alone.

I wouldn't measure confinement in square feet or meters but in forced separation from the group. You can "confine" a dog on an acre, if you just lock it out there and never let it have any contact with either dogs or humans ...yet a dog can feel totally integrated in a one-room bedsit, if you let it share your life (provided it gets excercised regularly and thus doesn't get cabin-fever)

nesf

peasant wrote:

So just because you have space doesn't mean that the dogs will use it all the time ...excercise (as in organised excercise where you actually demand some movement from your dog) is more important than space alone.

Oh, I completely agree. The two Golden Retrievers my parents have are fairly typical of the breed (;)), left to their own devices they'll happily sit around and do nothing. They need to be taken on walks or their weight starts climbing very quickly.

arybvtcw0eolkf

The dog ban is being discussed in the Dublin Forum now!.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055119471

alexdenby6

the amount of people there that dont have a clue what theyre talking about is amazing.

peasant

alexdenby6 wrote:

the amount of people there that dont have a clue what theyre talking about is amazing.

So is the amount of people who have a dog and still no clue ...unfortunately