DCC: Their at it again!. Gurrrr

arybvtcw0eolkf

An email from Lillian Colgan at 'Deed not Breed'...


YES HERE WE GO AGAIN!!

Dublin City Council are trying to implement a ban on restricted breeds being owned by council tenants, this is discrimination at its very least and it is an infringement on your human rights, responsible dog owners and council tenants are being treated as second class citizens in yet another example of Ireland's two-tier
Society.
Just because some people can’t afford to buy their home does not make council tenants irresponsible or incapable of controlling and owning a dog regardless of breed,
Council tenants have till September 30th to neuter and microchip their dogs or face eviction.

There has been no change in legislation and there has been no bylaws passed
This is just intimidation and bullying by Dublin City Council and if we lie down and accept this what will be next???

We must remind our councillors we have a very important election coming up in 2009 and if any council parties are supporting discrimination in turning council tenants into second class citizens we can fix this next year in the election!

we all need to stand together, this also effects where we can walk our dogs most of the parks and roads are owned by the council, how are we suppose to socialize our dogs, these dogs are not illegal in this country but it is being made impossible to own one ,
This is just the first step up the ladder for a nation wide ban , if dcc get away with this other councils will follow.

Deed NOT Breed Dublin is a group of volunteers who will be organising a peaceful protest outside Dublin City Council building Fishamble Street On Thursday September 4th @ 1pm

** (NO DOGS PLEASE) **

Contact Deed NOT Breed Dublin and show your support in joining this protest and stand up for your rights and to own a dog regardless of breed.

**We all know dogs are not the problem here irresponsible owners are! **

For more information contact: Deed Not Breed Dublin, 086-8479326/086-3085541

This drives me crazy, hopefully I'll attend the protest.

luckat

Just to give the other side, I have a friend who lives in what could be a very nice block of council flats. But one of the neighbours, a man with some form (ahem) has two pit bulls, which he allows to roam freely.

When the council comes to query him, he claims that he's just minding them for a relative who lives elsewhere. As soon as the council people are gone, the dogs are out again, lurking around the stairs and scaring the little kids.

stevoman

if the goverment wants to intorduce a danger ous dog act, why dont they have the bloody common sense to have something like a course that has to be sat when you are buying a so called dangerous dog. then if you are caught with a "dangerous" dog in your possesion without a said course or "license to have one then they should throw the book at you. that would stop the uneducated "i look hard with my rottie and pit bull" types people from buying them. and people who genuinally want to have the breeds as well minded pets can have their dogs to their hearts content.

Discostuy

Typical uneducated way of dealing with things...very frustrating.

I read the other day that Holland scraped their dangerous dog act because it didnt make any difference at all. I just wish the counsellors and Gov of this country would think with their brains for a change and not their azzes.

I'll try to be at this rally.

EGAR

luckat wrote: »

Just to give the other side, I have a friend who lives in what could be a very nice block of council flats. But one of the neighbours, a man with some form (ahem) has two pit bulls, which he allows to roam freely.

When the council comes to query him, he claims that he's just minding them for a relative who lives elsewhere. As soon as the council people are gone, the dogs are out again, lurking around the stairs and scaring the little kids.

All they have to do then is to ask for name and address of the alleged owner and go there and ask for dog licenses etc. I can't see why he would get away with lying.

arybvtcw0eolkf

luckat wrote: »

Just to give the other side, I have a friend who lives in what could be a very nice block of council flats. But one of the neighbours, a man with some form (ahem) has two pit bulls, which he allows to roam freely.

When the council comes to query him, he claims that he's just minding them for a relative who lives elsewhere. As soon as the council people are gone, the dogs are out again, lurking around the stairs and scaring the little kids.

How is that the other side of the coin, all that points to is an example of a bad owner and not a dangerous dog (or two).

tallus

Mairt: I think he meant it was an example of bad ownership, as opposed to other council tenants who take the time to look after their dogs in a responsible manner.

arybvtcw0eolkf

tallus wrote: »

Mairt: I think he meant it was an example of bad ownership, as opposed to other council tenants who take the time to look after their dogs in a responsible manner.

I know, that only dawned on me this morning actually.

Luckat apologises for taking you up wrong.

tallus

I think I'm a little dyslexic at times myself, I read posts wrongly.
Saw a guy with the biggest dog I have ever seen yesterday, in a council estate! One of those Japanese dogs, was a big as a horse, and kids were petting it on the head.
Largest dog I have ever seen and so well behaved. Not really a dog person myself but it was nice to see a positive side.

Fishyfreak

There are good tenants/there are bad tenants. There are good people in private ownership/there are bad people in private ownership.

DCC as landlords to tens of thousands of people have an obligation to protect people from dangerous dogs.

While I do not agree with a blanket ban, I 100% support the policy of dogs on the "banned list" not being allowed in flat/apartment complexes.

I've seen 1st hand some very dangerous dogs being kept in common shared areas putting residents and particularly children at great risk.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fishyfreak wrote: »

While I do not agree with a blanket ban, I 100% support the policy of dogs on the "banned list" not being allowed in flat/apartment complexes.

I've seen 1st hand some very dangerous dogs being kept in common shared areas putting residents and particularly children at great risk.

Whats this "banned list"?.

And these "very dangerous dogs", what kind of dogs were they (breeds?) and did you actually witness attacks on all these people "at great risk"?.

Finally, as these people were at great risk, what steps did you take to make these poor unfortunetes safer?.

Arcadian

Mairt wrote: »

An email from Lillian Colgan at 'Deed not Breed'...



Council tenants have till September 30th to neuter and microchip their dogs or face eviction.

Am I missing something in the email because all I can see is that council tenants are being told to have their dogs neutered and microchipped, why is that a problem?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Arcadian wrote: »

Am I missing something in the email because all I can see is that council tenants are being told to have their dogs neutered and microchipped, why is that a problem?

Well I'm not in the mood for getting into a long debate here, and I'm guessing your new to this debate anyway - sorry if I appear short.

But you really don't see a problem with compulsary neutering of a select breed of dog?.. (a little hint - culling a breed)

Dave Joyce

I've seen 1st hand some very dangerous dogs being kept in common shared areas putting residents and particularly children at great risk.

Evidence?? Was any injured by these "dangerous dogs"?

This is typical ____(insert any city/county in the country) Council bullying. What pisses me off about this attitude is most of the time the KNOW the individuals who USE their pets to create these type of problems and yet like Anti social behaviour problems totally REFUSE to do anything to deal with problem tenents and yet have the gall to try and introduce these type of bullying tactics:mad::mad:

kerrysgold

the goverment/council are so stupid that they don't realise good owner = friendly dog bad owner = unstable dog (possibly, or just neglected and miserable!) it's nothing to do with the dogs breed, any dog that does have "issues" it's usually the fault of the owner.

Spica

I wonder how is the council going to check that a dog has been neutered and microchipped...also how are they going to know that a tenant has a restricted breed if the dog has no papers? most dog wardens couldn't say the difference between a pitbull and a labrador...:D
It seems all intimidation to me, they don't have the appropriate structures/process to implement it - other than sending their bullies door-to-door.

EGAR

most dog wardens couldn't say the difference between a pitbull and a labrador...

That made me laugh, although is is actually quite sad, really. I have been sent the weirdest breeds and x breeds as Pit Bulls. One was supposed to be a Pit Bull x pup and turned out to be a fully grown Whippet x. I could go on like that forever.

GA361

Mairt wrote: »

Well I'm not in the mood for getting into a long debate here, and I'm guessing your new to this debate anyway - sorry if I appear short.

But you really don't see a problem with compulsary neutering of a select breed of dog?.. (a little hint - culling a breed)

Whoa Mairt,Stall de ball there!
I thought that this forum was pro-animals.Compulsive neutering+compulsive neutering contracts are a great thing.
If a dog is neutered then there is no chance of it having a load of pups and then that load of pups having to be killed.I'd love to say that we live in a hoity-toity ideal fantasy world where every dog-owner and breeder is a responsible owner/breeder . . . . .but unfortunately we dont.

A flat(private or corporation) is no place to breed a dog.PERIOD.
If the DCC are trying to prevent residents from owning dogs that is wrong and shouldn't happen. . . . but it is 100pc write to prevent 'accidents' and irresponsible breeding.

hotredhead

I would agree with the last post.I am an avid animal lover and have just re-homed a rescue dog.A beautiful labrador, who has been neutered btw.
There is far too many dogs,cats etc etc in pounds and shelters up and down the country.By neutering our pets we are preventing more and more unwanted animals.

zuroph

+1 support for DCC on this, to say they are culling a breed is ridiculous. these dogs shouldnt be bred in council flats.

cowzerp

They shoud clamp down on irresponsible owners of any breed, not just pick on the so called dangerous breeds, anyone who knows anything about these dogs know they are the most friendly dogs of all.

Culling a breed type is wrong, Hitler might support it though.

lostinnappies

To be honest there are owners of some non-restricted breeds out there that are the most vicious dogs ive ever met. They dont live in council flats either.

If they want to ban dogs in apartments i understand that, but it should be a case of all dogs. Council tenants are just that tenants and have to abide by whatever the "landlord" council enforces just as private tenants have to. They can object but if the support isnt there the council wont take them seriously. But if they live in council houses i really dont see why they would also have to abide by this.

zuroph

cowzerp wrote: »

They shoud clamp down on irresponsible owners of any breed, not just pick on the so called dangerous breeds, anyone who knows anything about these dogs know they are the most friendly dogs of all.

Culling a breed type is wrong, Hitler might support it though.

ah good old godwins law, uv never let a forum down!!!

They asked that people neuter and chip their dogs. not put them down. neutering is a good thing.

cowzerp

zuroph wrote: »

ah good old godwins law, uv never let a forum down!!!

They asked that people neuter and chip their dogs. not put them down. neutering is a good thing.

There phasing the dog type out, a different form of culling, killing with kindness you might say.

zuroph

thats not phasing the dog out, its stopping it from being bred in council housing. they can be bred anywhere else.

cowzerp

thats where it starts

zuroph

cowzerp wrote: »

thats where it starts

its poland all over again eh?! :rolleyes:

Nothingcompares

There seems to be a continuing assumption that all council housing are flats/apartments, this certainly isn't true.

I suppose it has only been the last 10 years or so that apartment blocks have become common place. But in other parts of Europe people have kept all breeds of dogs in apartments. Of course, some breeds of dogs need more exercise then others and enjoy exercise more but the size of your back garden is pretty irrelevant to this. For the majority of dogs, the required exercise comes from walking and not from running around the back yard. So if you want to keep your greyhound in your flat that's fine by me, as long as you walk it regularly and give it an opportunity to run in responsible circumstances.

In terms of this DCC ban I completely agree with the other posters that this will be very difficult to strictly enforce. I can't see a legal standpoint where an owner of a Staffordshire Bull Terrior X can't just claim there is no Pitbull/illegal breed in him. Surely it's up to the council to prove your breed is what they say it is. I don't approve of the ban either and I agree with the idea that the irresponsible owners/handlers are to blame.

However, I would support a compulsive neutering/spaying and microchipping legislation for all breeds of dog and cat in Ireland unless the owner had applied for a special breeders license. This will cut down on unwanted strays and unscrupulous breeders.

LovelyTom

To me this means the breed's will be bred more responcibly and given the room the need to be healthy.
I'd never agree with culling a breed, some of my favourite breeds are apparently 'dangerous', favourite being the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's.

Would you not agree that responcible breeding would result in less 'accidents' and more stable dogs?

Seems like a good idea to me.

arybvtcw0eolkf

zuroph wrote: »

thats not phasing the dog out, its stopping it from being bred in council housing. they can be bred anywhere else.

If you know the history behind this campaign you'll know that DCC along with The Greens and Joe Costello of The Labour party have proposed to bring this policy in nation wide.

Its in everyone's interest to stop this.

zuroph

Id be more in favour of breeders licences across the entire dog population of ireland.

Spica

A flat(private or corporation) is no place to breed a dog.PERIOD.
If the DCC are trying to prevent residents from owning dogs that is wrong and shouldn't happen. . . . but it is 100pc write to prevent 'accidents' and irresponsible breeding.

does it mean that only people who live in council houses/flats are irresponsible breeders??? I don't recall having read that the new rules are to prevent irresponsible breeding - that would be too articulated for the council - or to avoid the stray problem in Ireland. Actually I don't recall having read any explanations for these rules at all...

Breeding is not the issue here and it just adds more discrimination to the council tenants.

zuroph

forgive if I'm wrong, arent neutered dogs more docile and better behaved?

also, can someone fix the spelling mistake in the title?! it really grinds with me

arybvtcw0eolkf

zuroph wrote: »

also, can someone fix the spelling mistake in the title?! it really grinds with me

Sorry, it shud have bean fife R's instead off fure, my misteak.

zuroph

Mairt wrote: »

Sorry, it shud have bean fife R's instead off fure, my misteak.

lol, nothing personal, just hate how often that is misspelled!!

Nothingcompares

Mairt - given your previous experience of the amount of stray Staffs and similar breeds in the pound, many of which will be put to sleep, do you not think we need better control, possibly via government legislation, on the reproduction of dogs?

EGAR

As a rescue and a bull breed rescue at that - I am the last person who would say: breed more dogs. however, the most common breed in Ireland to be thrown away/disposed of is the Greyhound, closely followed by collies and collie crosses - yet no one is considering compulsary spaying/neutering for those breeds. What riles me is that the compulsary neuter thingy is JUST FOR THE RESTRICTED BREEDS. So obviously its ok to breed Great Danes in a council flat or Bull Kutta's.

I am sorry but one rule for all or one rules all?

The plight of Staffie and Staffie x and APBT in the pounds is so severe because very few rescues take them. And THAT is the real shame.

Justin Walsh

Im sorry but this debate on "Dangerous Dogs" has gone on too long frankly our Government has not got the mental capacity to create a Law or licensing system that would solve some of the problems responsible dog owners are having i.e bans on dangerous dogs.
Just for the record not all of the young males you see with these banned dogs have them "to be hard" I know many young guys with pit bulls staffs rotties etc that give the dog everything it needs training,socialization with kids,adults;other animals etc and because of how they look they are scrutinized about having these dogs!As I have said I know many responsible dog owners but of course their are and always will be, regardless of licensing or laws, muppets who do not know how to look after a dog of ANY breed!
Someone here mentioned seeing a large Japanese type dog in a council estate which was very well behaved I too have a Jap type of dog (I have an Akita) and they are a very placid dog once you set their boundaries just like every other breed I have ever had to pleasure of dealing with!

arybvtcw0eolkf

Nothingcompares wrote: »

Mairt - given your previous experience of the amount of stray Staffs and similar breeds in the pound, many of which will be put to sleep, do you not think we need better control, possibly via government legislation, on the reproduction of dogs?

We need better control of ALL dogs/owners & breeders and proper enforcement of existing laws in relation to same. And not just for dogs on the restricted breeds list.

As for dogs in the pounds, look through any of the sites which look after rehoming pound dogs and see how many bull breeds you see compared to others like Collies, JRT's etc.

Nothingcompares

Sorry guys I shouldn't had made it sound like there are more "pitbulls" in the pounds that other breeds. I'd agree with you MArit and that's what I actually said earlier - police all breeders of all breeds. Won't solve the problem, certainly not over night but hopefully will prevent puppy farms etc.

There are actually hundreds of Irish grey hounds being rehomed abroad, in places like Finland. It's absolutely appaling what happens to some greyhounds who don't make the considered grade. WAsn't there a story recently of a guy that had hundreds of dogs buried in his farm? Polluting the environment as well as terribly unethical.

Justin Walsh you wouldn't have a picture of your akita you could post up here. lovely breed.

getz

i notice that dublin council have the bulldog onthe banned dog list ? strange because the bulldog is no longer on the dangerous dog list in ireland {who has ever known of a british bull dog bite anyone} i have had them for years .when i bring mine over to ireland kids love to pat and play with him

LovelyTom

Bulldog's aren't on the banned list.
Where did you read this?

arybvtcw0eolkf

LovelyTom wrote: »

Bulldog's aren't on the banned list.
Where did you read this?

We have a "banned list" too?.

Dyr

tallus wrote: »

Saw a guy with the biggest dog I have ever seen yesterday, in a council estate! One of those Japanese dogs, was a big as a horse, and kids were petting it on the head.

Whereabouts was that?:cool:

tallus

Bambi: Tallaght.

Dyr

oh right, it sounded like it might be my lad you saw:pac:


Apparantly theres a protest about this tomorrow outside civic offices

LovelyTom

Mairt wrote: »

We have a "banned list" too?.

Ok sorry, restricted breeds.
Better?

The Sweeper

I don't think there's anything wrong with people having to neuter and microchip their animals. I see the point that it's unfair to discriminate between a collie and a pitbull by saying you only have to neuter the pitbull - they should all have to be neutered.

I believe there should be three types of pet licence - the licence for people who want to show their pets, and subsequently may have un-neutered pets; the licence for people who want to breed their pets, and subsequently may have un-neutered pets; and the licence for everyone else. The first two - shower's licence and breeder's licence, should both be subject to a home visit before granting. As for "How can you enforce that", dog wardens can easily tell if an animal is neutered if vets implement the tattoo system - while the animal is under general anaesthetic being neutered, the vet tattoos the inside of their ear with a small symbol to indicate this animal has been neutered.

Perhaps there should even be a fourth licensing system for people with working dogs - but if you have a gun dog, perhaps you should have to produce your gun licence before you get your working dog licence.

Again, I don't see why people shouldn't have to do these things. A bitch in heat is a hassle. A pregnant bitch is a hassle. Trying to home a litter of mongrel puppies is a hassle. Having to deal with those hassles every time they crop up in the life of an un-neutered bitch is a major hassle. One quick operation, in my mind, is far less hassle.

I also don't see the problem of people living in close-quarters accommodation having to neuter and microchip their dogs.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I don't think there's anything wrong with people having to neuter and microchip their animals. I see the point that it's unfair to discriminate between a collie and a pitbull by saying you only have to neuter the pitbull - they should all have to be neutered.

I believe there should be three types of pet licence - the licence for people who want to show their pets, and subsequently may have un-neutered pets; the licence for people who want to breed their pets, and subsequently may have un-neutered pets; and the licence for everyone else. The first two - shower's licence and breeder's licence, should both be subject to a home visit before granting. As for "How can you enforce that", dog wardens can easily tell if an animal is neutered if vets implement the tattoo system - while the animal is under general anaesthetic being neutered, the vet tattoos the inside of their ear with a small symbol to indicate this animal has been neutered.

Perhaps there should even be a fourth licensing system for people with working dogs - but if you have a gun dog, perhaps you should have to produce your gun licence before you get your working dog licence.

Again, I don't see why people shouldn't have to do these things. A bitch in heat is a hassle. A pregnant bitch is a hassle. Trying to home a litter of mongrel puppies is a hassle. Having to deal with those hassles every time they crop up in the life of an un-neutered bitch is a major hassle. One quick operation, in my mind, is far less hassle.

I also don't see the problem of people living in close-quarters accommodation having to neuter and microchip their dogs.

Feeling a little lazy today?.

getz

this is the list of banned dogs in ireland , from[ irishdogs ie] american pitbull, english bull terrier, staffy, the bulldog,the bandog,{its the same dog but dont tell the person who first put it on the list},the bullmastiff,the doberman,the german shepherd, rhodesian ridgeback the rottweiler , the akita , and the tosa , now the list has been changed the bulldog has been taken off as they found that you couldent put a muzzle on a bulldog , one wit walked round dublin with the muzzle tied to its backside

lightening

Getz, there are no banned dogs in Ireland. You can own any dog in Ireland. There are additional rules that are imposed on if you own one of the following breeds, strains or crossbreeds under the control of dogs regulations, here is the list... I don't think the bulldog was ever on the list.

American Pit Bull Terrier
English Bull Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Bull Mastiff
Dobermann Pinscher
German Shepherd (Alsatian)
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Rottweiler
Japanese Akita
Japanese Tosa
Bandog
The rules state that:

These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must be kept on a short strong lead by a person over 16 years who is capable of controlling them
These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must be muzzled whenever they are in a public place
These dogs (or strains and crosses of them) must wear a collar bearing the name and address of their owner at all times.

Weirdly, the list contains dogs that are very unlikely to bite.