Dangerous Dogs ban (new thread)

Gillie

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Banning will not solve the problem, but it's a start. Let DCC get started within its own remit and sort out the working class heroes first. Other councils can follow later with similar bans nationwide extending to all public areas.

Did you have a bad experience? I think your the only one here who feels this way!

Just curious

alexdenby6

thats just bang out of order, mods do something about this please.

Our man in Havana

alexdenby6 wrote:

thats just bang out of order, mods do something about this please.

Sonnenblumen is entitled to his/her opinion - I will not edit the post just because it disagrees with the majority of the posters on the thread.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
- Voltaire (Always worth remembering!)

Faye

alexdenby6

working class heroes, thats whats wrong.

Freddie59

BeauZak wrote:

Yeah I know And you would be amongst the many responsible dog owners who would be happy to do the same. The problem really is the "problem owners" who refuse to be part of the solution but who continue to cause problems for the majority of dog owners who are responsible. Which is why we shouldn't all be punished because of them.

Anyway this is something to keep an eye on. It will start with council properties, then move to council areas (parks, paths, beaches) and what next?

Hopefully private housing estates.

JarOfFlies

Freddie59 wrote:

Hopefully private housing estates.

Never happen.

~Thalia~

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Banning will not solve the problem.

What is "the problem" as you percieve it?

Jimoslimos

Kind of in two minds about this.


DCC have the right (as does any private landlord) of banning animals from being kept in their properties.
I can see its not the banning of dogs but more specifically the banning of selected dogs that has caused uproar.

From living in England I see these dogs (particularly staffs and pitbulls) being kept by scumbags, who see them as some sort of expression of a warped view of national identity. Mighn't be that relevant in Ireland but a dog owned by a scumbag (IMO the very group most responsible for poor training) is more likely to be on the list of dangerous breeds.
However I do think it unfair that all DCC residents receive the same punishment (akin to calling them all "scumbags who are unable to take care of a dog").

Not sure if it was mentioned but I think the best way forward (and unfortunately for DCC the most expensive) would be for dogs on the list to have some sort of examination for exemption - attitude towards strangers, response to owner's basic commands, etc before a special license would be granted. DCC would still have their ban but would know that the exempt dogs permitted (by license) would be better controlled and less aggressive than the dogs not on the list.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Jimoslimos wrote:

Kind of in two minds about this.


DCC have the right (as does any private landlord) of banning animals from being kept in their properties.
I can see its not the banning of dogs but more specifically the banning of selected dogs that has caused uproar.

From living in England I see these dogs (particularly staffs and pitbulls) being kept by scumbags, who see them as some sort of expression of a warped view of national identity. Mighn't be that relevant in Ireland but a dog owned by a scumbag (IMO the very group most responsible for poor training) is more likely to be on the list of dangerous breeds.
However I do think it unfair that all DCC residents receive the same punishment (akin to calling them all "scumbags who are unable to take care of a dog").

Not sure if it was mentioned but I think the best way forward (and unfortunately for DCC the most expensive) would be for dogs on the list to have some sort of examination for exemption - attitude towards strangers, response to owner's basic commands, etc before a special license would be granted. DCC would still have their ban but would know that the exempt dogs permitted (by license) would be better controlled and less aggressive than the dogs not on the list.

Would it not be easier if DCC enforced existing laws re. ownership of restricted breeds?.

This is the same with everything thats wrong with Ireland these days, paper over the cracks. Cook up some unenforcable laws to make it appear your doing something and all the while its the little scumbags on our streets who sit back and laugh at the rest of us while we stupidly comply.

Dyr

Jimoslimos wrote:

Kind of in two minds about this.


DCC have the right (as does any private landlord) of banning animals from being kept in their properties.
I can see its not the banning of dogs but more specifically the banning of selected dogs that has caused uproar.

DCC is not a private landlord AFAIK. Actually, if DCC had to abide by the standards that private landlords properties are supposed to meet then most of their dwellings would be shut down, which makes the whole "concern for tenants" angle a bit laughable really

Freddie59

JarOfFlies wrote:

Never happen.

I sincerely hope it does. The whole dog situation in Ireland is completely out of hand. In fairness, what has led to the banning is not necessarily the breaking of laws such as the muzzling regulations, but rather the lack of enforcement by the authorities.

I saw a 12 year-old bringing an unmuzzled Rottweiler for a walk recently.....accompanied by a toddler. Rank stupidity of the highest order on behalf of the owner.

Housing estates were built for people - not animals. We would do well to remember this.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Freddie59 wrote:

I saw a 12 year-old bringing an unmuzzled Rottweiler for a walk recently.....accompanied by a toddler. Rank stupidity of the highest order on behalf of the owner.

Housing estates were built for people - not animals. We would do well to remember this.

So whose at fault here, the dog or the owner?


As to your second point. Grand. lets get rid of every pidgon (sp'ing, justin from the boozer ) rabbit run etc in Darndale, Ballymun, Bally'er etc

Sonnenblumen

Bambi wrote:

DCC is not a private landlord AFAIK. Actually, if DCC had to abide by the standards that private landlords properties are supposed to meet then most of their dwellings would be shut down, which makes the whole "concern for tenants" angle a bit laughable really

You should really not go down that road......utter nonsense.

Sonnenblumen

~Mod edit~

First and last warning. Anymore of this tripe will get you banned.

JarOfFlies

Sonnenblumen wrote:

~sniped by Mod edit~.

Now you're just trolling.

alexdenby6

btw, i disagree wholeheartedly with sonnenblumen, and used the working class heroes to highlight what he said as being wrong, you cant label people like that.

tallus

I dont have a problem with people having dogs as long as they obey the letter of the law. It shouldn't matter where they live.
Do people actually take out insurance in case their dogs attack anybody ? Just a thought. I have never had a dog, nor have any of my immediate family.
I'm not advocating that people should have insurance, but it would give D.C.C. nothing to whinge about.

Sonnenblumen

Sonnenblumen wrote:

~Mod edit~

First and last warning. Anymore of this tripe will get you banned.

OK so where in your view are you more likely going to see the 'lads' hanging around with the 'dangerous dogs' and where in your view are the attacks most likely to take place? DCC would hardly be known for initiative, but they are responding to a long overdue redress of a bad situation.

Dangerous dogs appeal to a certain type of person, not uniform but nonetheless most can imagine the stereotype.

Dyr

Sonnenblumen wrote:

You should really not go down that road......utter nonsense.

*yawn* Fancy backing that statement up?

Sonnenblumen

Bambi wrote:

*yawn* Fancy backing that statement up?

See no evil, hear no evil and no doubt doing damn nothing about the evil. Why not enquire with a sample (but there are many) of the genuine law abiding citizens living in DCC estates and the crap they must tolerate because some simply cannot live in new houses.

Take a look around the few new DCC developments and see how much damage so few do that hurts so many.

We've got ASBO legislation but unfortunately people have to live with it daily.

So waken up and stop yawning. Ownership of dangerous dogs in those circumstances is symptomatic of a more dysfunctional individual who doesn't give a damn about the local community.

Bad owners make bad dogs, I said it weeks ago, and people have said for years. As a first step banning dogs is part of a broader solution.

peasant

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Bad owners make bad dogs, I said it weeks ago, and people have said for years. As a first step banning dogs is part of a broader solution.

now ...

Please!

Read that sentence again ...like properly read it, in the sense of: "trying to grasp its meaning".

Wipe the foam off your mouth and give it try.

Go on ..you can do it !



You will then come to the realisation that it makes no sense whatsoever and that you just contradicted yourself in one short sentence.

See?

Good boy

Now STFU and go foam somewhere else

liveforphotos

I'm with Peasant. Sonnenblumen's first sentence made some sense. The second contradicted it.

tallus

I think he just worded it wrongly, tho I may be wrong. I'd have said that a dog is a reflection of it's owner.

Freddie59

Mairt wrote:

So whose at fault here, the dog or the owner?

The owner, obviously. Whio not only placed his/her own children in jeapardy, but any they would meet along the way. A complete and utter moron.:mad:

Mairt wrote:

As to your second point. Grand. lets get rid of every pidgon (sp'ing, justin from the boozer ) rabbit run etc in Darndale, Ballymun, Bally'er etc

Why not? As I've said, housing estates are for people, not animals. Particularly out of control animals, whose owners seem to care little about controlling their beasts, or the effect it has on their neighbours and neighbourhood.

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote:

Now STFU and go foam somewhere else

What does STFU mean?

peasant

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=stfu&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

peasant

Freddie59 wrote:

Why not? As I've said, housing estates are for people, not animals. Particularly out of control animals, whose owners seem to care little about controlling their beasts, or the effect it has on their neighbours and neighbourhood.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53554391&postcount=10

Sonnenblumen

Peasant - Too ambiguous, I'm not familiar with trailer park trash so can you explain it in plain english, you understand?

Our man in Havana

Enough is enough this thread is now closed due to trolling/personal abuse.
This topic is now off limits and no new threads on this subject will be entertained for the foreseeable future.

Sonnenblumen, Your banned! Well done! You were warned.

Peasant, It is the first time I have seen you rise to abuse. I would not like to see a repeat. Consider this a first warning.

This matter is now closed.