Is it required to have a dog on a lead?

thebullkf

andreac wrote: »

What are they on the list for then if you seem to know so much about the whole thing??

Actually thats where you are wrong. No thought went into it at all as if it did then no dogs would be on such a ridiculous list.

People that know absol nothing about dogs or any of the breeds in question were the ones to make up this list.:mad:

think padraic flynn drew up this list when he was in DOE??

andreac

Callanutd wrote: »

I am afraid you are the one being ridiculous now. No body said film = real life. You made the point that Rotties dont look intimidating. Your point was countered with the above saying that if that is the case then why are they consistantly used as menacing dogs in the movies? I agree with you that it is unfair to tar one breed with the one brush. But at the same time you must realise that these dogs are restricted as they have the potential to cause a lot of damage. A bad rottie is a lot more dangerous than a bad spaniel. That is just fact. These are big powerful dogs and some people find them intimidating and would be reluctant to approach them.

A poster referred to those films and saying that is why they have a bad rep, but those films are not real life, so i wouldnt be taking anything in a film as gospel. Please read Adser's reply on films.

Sorry, but there are several other breeds that are just as big and strong and even stronger than rotties that could cause worse damage than them but they arent on the list are they? Why not?? Because the media hype is not there for those breeds.
As someone else mentioned, why wasnt a saint bernard put on the list after being in the film Cujo??
The list is a joke, im not going around in circles trying to defend the breeds on it, but people here commenting on rotties etc in a bad way, havent got a clue about these breeds and their temperaments and so on.

homerhop

Is there any site that show the statistics or which breed of dog is responsible for the most attacks on people in Ireland or our nearest counter parts in the UK?

seamus

Callanutd wrote: »

Your point was countered with the above saying that if that is the case then why are they consistantly used as menacing dogs in the movies?

Personally I would say that Dobies are used more often to represent "vicious" dogs, but you're somewhat putting the cart before the horse here. Rottweilers are portrayed as vicious dogs in media because the media have fostered this idea that rottweilers (and the likes of Pits and Dobies) are vicious. It's a negative feedback loop. The media uses them to represent viciousness, therefore they appear vicious, therefore the media uses them to represent viciousness...

In fact, it's probably no surprise that both Dobermans and Rottweilers originated in Germany and would have been widely used as working dogs for the German armies in both World Wars. Since film media was just finding it feet at that time, one could argue that these breeds have been victimised by association - portrayals of German armies would have overwhelmingly been negative and their working dogs would have been portrayed as vicious beasts.

If you ask a young child what a thief or a kidnapper looks like, they will almost always say that it's a tall, evil, ugly man, dressed all in black and speaking with an evil voice. This is overwhelmingly how the media portrays attackers and "bad" people to children. It has no basis in reality. It's just tradition.

wolfpawnat

homerhop wrote: »

Is there any site that show the statistics or which breed of dog is responsible for the most attacks on people in Ireland or our nearest counter parts in the UK?

Not exactly what you are looking for, but my ex/housemate is in Veterinary and their lecturers warn them more about terrier and small breeds than any other. But a large breed lunging at you will cause more damage.

andreac

Rottweilers were actually bred to herd cattle in case you didnt know.

wolfpawnat

seamus wrote: »

Personally I would say that Dobies are used more often to represent "vicious" dogs, but you're somewhat putting the cart before the horse here. Rottweilers are portrayed as vicious dogs in media because the media have fostered this idea that rottweilers (and the likes of Pits and Dobies) are vicious. It's a negative feedback loop. The media uses them to represent viciousness, therefore they appear vicious, therefore the media uses them to represent viciousness...

In fact, it's probably no surprise that both Dobermans and Rottweilers originated in Germany and would have been widely used as working dogs for the German armies in both World Wars. Since film media was just finding it feet at that time, one could argue that these breeds have been victimised by association - portrayals of German armies would have overwhelmingly been negative and their working dogs would have been portrayed as vicious beasts.

If you ask a young child what a thief or a kidnapper looks like, they will almost always say that it's a tall, evil, ugly man, dressed all in black and speaking with an evil voice. This is overwhelmingly how the media portrays attackers and "bad" people to children. It has no basis in reality. It's just tradition.

I agree, also their colouring, (mostly black) is very ominous. Actually all 3 major german breeds are blabk with tan also WTF?!? Sorry back to replying.

They also like using intelligent looking dogs, because that does add fear to it. If you look at a GS or a Doberman, they do look like they are calculating everything around them. Nothing goes unnoticed and they seem to wander off in direction but turn up another one! There is nothing scarier in a movie than a ferocious looking dog with brains!!!!

toadfly

Here is a list taken from this site..

http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/dangerous-breeds.html

claiming the 10 most aggressive dogs are;

1. Dachshunds
2. Chihuahua
3. Jack Russell
4. Australian Cattle Dog
5. Cocker Spaniel
6. Beagle
7. Border Collie
8. Pit Bull Terrier
9. Great Dane
10. English Springer Spaniel

Dont know how credible it is, found it in a very quick search.

wolfpawnat

TillyGirl wrote: »

Here is a list taken from this site..

http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/dangerous-breeds.html

claiming the 10 most aggressive dogs are;

1. Dachshunds
2. Chihuahua
3. Jack Russell
4. Australian Cattle Dog
5. Cocker Spaniel
6. Beagle
7. Border Collie
8. Pit Bull Terrier
9. Great Dane
10. English Springer Spaniel

Dont know how credible it is, found it in a very quick search.

I will tell you me opinions on the top 3 because of what I have experienced personally!:)
1.EVIL!!!!!!!! Seriously they are over pampered lap dogs that are so used to getting their way they do turn viscious! I had one for 2 months that I inherited, in that 2 months, my family suffered at least 25-30 serious bites. We had to have her put to sleep
2.Evil again, you cant see the little fecker coming and again over pampered!
3. renowned for it, surprised it isn't higher!

That said I know they are not all like that! I know a Jack russell that lived for 21 years and even in agony he NEVER snapped or nipped!

Cherry Blossom

Quite surprised the border collie isn't higher on the list. Surprised Beagles and Danes are on it at all

Callanutd

seamus wrote: »

Personally I would say that Dobies are used more often to represent "vicious" dogs, but you're somewhat putting the cart before the horse here. Rottweilers are portrayed as vicious dogs in media because the media have fostered this idea that rottweilers (and the likes of Pits and Dobies) are vicious. It's a negative feedback loop. The media uses them to represent viciousness, therefore they appear vicious, therefore the media uses them to represent viciousness...

I am afraid you are still not getting my point. You seem to be taking single sentences from my post rather than looking at the post as an entirity. I am not making a point as regards the RB list, I am not even making a point as regards the overall use of RB in movies. It was a post from Andreac where she stated she did not agree that rotties look more menacing than a spaniel. Fair enough for her but for a large portion of people they would seriously disagree with her. You can say media hype has given these dogs a bad image, maybe that is the case I am not and did not intend to comment on that. I merely wanted to point out originally that the initial poster found these dogs intimidating. These dogs to a lot of people do look intimidating and that is why they are used in movies such as the ones listed. Although the manner in which this was pointed out by sellerbarry may have been flippant, I believe it is valid. Their use in movies shows that to some people they look intimidating and you cannot disagree with how something makes someone feel. No matter how much your own dog maybe the softest most loveable creature to some it will still intimidate. I again want to stress that I am not saying this is right or wrong I just want you to try and understand others points of view.

DBCyc

Can we not move on from this "which breed is the most likely to bite" obsession? Any breed of dog can bite and cause harm and no breed is inherently dangerous.

Callanutd

I also wanted to make a point on the numerous references to Cujo. Cujo was a St. Bernard and at the beginning of the film is extremely placid and friendly. The reason he turns is he contracts rabies. A disease that drives animals insane (hence the term like a rabid dog). It was not an instance of a family pet just turning on its owners for no reason. (Not that this can happen with RB dogs before any one takes offence) I also believe that the use of a normally docile dog like the st. bernard is part of the phsycological drama of the film.

thebullkf

TillyGirl wrote: »

Here is a list taken from this site..

http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/dangerous-breeds.html

claiming the 10 most aggressive dogs are;

1. Dachshunds
2. Chihuahua
3. Jack Russell
4. Australian Cattle Dog
5. Cocker Spaniel
6. Beagle
7. Border Collie
8. Pit Bull Terrier
9. Great Dane
10. English Springer Spaniel

Dont know how credible it is, found it in a very quick search.

not sure myself but maybe the damage done by rotties/pitbulls/ridgebacks are whats driving the hype?

i mean i fancy my chances against a JT....

no way against a pit bull....

also the fact that Rotties/Alsations are used as guard dogs might give the impression they must be vicious??

also agressive knobs/youngfellas intimidating people in housing estates by walking/'Hussing' these dogs unmuzzled doesn't help their case.

For instance i was walking my two in park the other day and there were 2 pitbulls off lead running all over the place.
2 owners/young lads drinking dutch gold.i picked up my two and walked out,reported incident to the parkie.
Why did i leave and report it? because of the owners and their attitudes towards their pets-not the dogs themselves per say.
i just felt that if either of those dogs got their claws/Paws on my two then its game over.
God forbid if a child were to be hurt.just to clarify i'm criticisng the owners more than the dogs-most people who hate dobies/bulls/rotties never owned one.
Bad owners breed bad dogs.-( though i once had a boxer who was vicious towards other dogs-despite intense socilaisation classes/training.
he just had a mean strreak in him:()

DBCyc

thebullkf wrote: »

not sure myself but maybe the damage done by rotties/pitbulls/ridgebacks are whats driving the hype?

I would say that it is the reporting of such incidents and the tabloid hysteria is what is driving the hype. The tabloids are not interesting when a nice fluffy friendly looking dog turns on someone and does damage, but when its a rottie/pitbull they harp on about "devil dogs" and other such rubbish.

wolfpawnat

thebullkf wrote: »

also the fact that Rotties/Alsations are used as guard dogs might give the impression they must be vicious??

also agressive knobs/youngfellas intimidating people in housing estates by walking/'Hussing' these dogs unmuzzled doesn't help their case.
Bad owners breed bad dogs.-( though i once had a boxer who was vicious towards other dogs-despite intense socilaisation classes/training.
he just had a mean streak in him:()

Exactly what I said in an earlier post, they look intimadating to some people, also the rep they have acquired has done them no favours, but that is media and bad owners!

Also I did say some dogs are just not the comformaty to their breed. But I bet the Boxer was good with ye? They are few and far between but bad eggs happen!

thebullkf

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Exactly what I said in an earlier post, they look intimadating to some people, also the rep they have acquired has done them no favours, but that is media and bad owners!

Also I did say some dogs are just not the comformaty to their breed. But I bet the Boxer was good with ye? They are few and far between but bad eggs happen!

+1000000000,0000000



he was great,:(:(:(:(:(:(loved him to bits,builtlike a horse-great with kids.lick you todeath.but..other dogs..=vicious...seriously a different dog.he drew blood before.So i had to get rid of him:(:mad::(:(:(

A Country Voice

zeds alive wrote: »

There is a guy near me who walks his Rottweiler and 2 German Sheppard's
on the streets without any leads , Is he required to have them on a lead and if so who can I report him to for not doing it?

As has been stated by others on the thread, any dog on the restricted list must be on a lead and muzzled at any time in public.

As has also been stated ANY dog in a public area must be kept under effective control by its owner.

People have said this doesnt neccisarily mean that the dog has to be on a lead

Can anyone tell me how a dog can be kept under effective control while not being on a lead or in a cage?

I think the debate on whether certain breeds should be on the restricted list or not is a debate for another thread.

I'm not a dog lover or dog hater by the way.

A Country Voice

Chinasea

I, nor any other dog owner I know have been asked to provide my dog licence in the last 30 years as a dog owner. I would like to see the animal controls department of my county council out and about patrolling but as said I have never seen a single one.

I have been very frightened especially in the last 5 years or so as the track suited youths / yobs took over my local park with their unleashed pit-bull dogs and there is no way I am taking those guys on. I rang the council and reported this but they are still all hiding behind the desks and as usual no law and no order is applied and I am unable to use my local park.



Do what you like - no one of any official authority will stop you. This is Ireland, laws galore but never any implementation.

andreac

A Country Voice wrote: »

.People have said this doesnt neccisarily mean that the dog has to be on a lead

Can anyone tell me how a dog can be kept under effective control while not being on a lead or in a cage?

.

Plenty of dogs are very well trained so will not move from their owners side while out walking or will come back straight away when they are called by their owner.
A cage would mean its confined, very different from being under control.

maringo

Jack russels terrify me If you're worried they might attack someone drop a note in his door but don't put your fingers in the letterbox!

A Country Voice

andreac wrote: »

Plenty of dogs are very well trained so will not move from their owners side while out walking or will come back straight away when they are called by their owner.
A cage would mean its confined, very different from being under control.

would you call, probably being able to call a dog back to you "effective control" ? I wouldnt.

Maybe the dog has always done what it was told before, maybe the dog has never left its owners side while out walking before, I still wouldnt call it having a dog under "effective control" unless the dog can be restrained in the case of it deciding to run off after a car/child/other dog/cat/bird or whatever.

Thats logic. I know people have pets and love them, and sometimes logic can be overuled by the heart, but the law is the law.

A Country Voice.

andreac

A Country Voice wrote: »

would you call, probably being able to call a dog back to you "effective control" ? I wouldnt.

Maybe the dog has always done what it was told before, maybe the dog has never left its owners side while out walking before, I still wouldnt call it having a dog under "effective control" unless the dog can be restrained in the case of it deciding to run off after a car/child/other dog/cat/bird or whatever.

Thats logic. I know people have pets and love them, and sometimes logic can be overuled by the heart, but the law is the law.

A Country Voice.

Yes i would, absolutely.

But that is the law, UNDER EFFECTIVE CONTROL (it doesnt say confined or restrained).
You keep trying to change the wording/meaning of it. Control doesnt necessarily mean restrained or confined, its called control.

You can be in control of something without having to restrain it or confine it.
The Law states under control, not confined, or restrained. If you think being under control has to be restrained or confined then thats your opinion, but the law doesnt state that.

Plenty of dogs as i have stated are under control off lead. My fella wouldnt be as his recall isnt good, but i know loads of dogs that would come straight back the minute their name is called.

seamus

A Country Voice wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how a dog can be kept under effective control while not being on a lead or in a cage?

Training. Can you train a dog to never do anything which you haven't told it to do? Yes you can. Such regimental control of course would be imposed on very few dogs, but few people would dispute that "effective control" boils down to having the dog heel and come to you when called, regardless of the situation. This is a distinct possibility, which a lot of people have managed (it's not that difficult to train). Though not necessarily everyone who has their dog running off lead has them under effective control, not by a long shot.

lrushe

Callanutd wrote: »

I also wanted to make a point on the numerous references to Cujo. Cujo was a St. Bernard and at the beginning of the film is extremely placid and friendly. The reason he turns is he contracts rabies. A disease that drives animals insane (hence the term like a rabid dog). It was not an instance of a family pet just turning on its owners for no reason. (Not that this can happen with RB dogs before any one takes offence) I also believe that the use of a normally docile dog like the st. bernard is part of the phsycological drama of the film.

Stephen King gave the role of Cujo to a St. Bernard because in the 80's the media dog villian of the time was the St. Bernard due to them being owned by the wrong people and other people getting bitten, just like the Rotties or Pits are today, in 20 years time who knows which dog will be their victim.

Either way I'm totally screwed, I've a Chihuahua and a Rottweiler, it's amazing anyone escapes my house alive without a serious mauling :rolleyes:

A Country Voice

seamus wrote: »

Training. Can you train a dog to never do anything which you haven't told it to do? Yes you can. Such regimental control of course would be imposed on very few dogs, but few people would dispute that "effective control" boils down to having the dog heel and come to you when called, regardless of the situation. This is a distinct possibility, which a lot of people have managed (it's not that difficult to train). Though not necessarily everyone who has their dog running off lead has them under effective control, not by a long shot.

Under the law, theres no room for doubt.
The idea that if an owner calls a dog and its a "distinct possibility" that the dog will heel and return to the owner is not "effective control" its a possibility of "effective control"

How many as a percentage of dog owners have their dogs trained to the stage where they will always heel and return? even an estimate?

A Country Voice

Wolfe Tone

A Country Voice wrote: »

Under the law, theres no room for doubt.
The idea that if an owner calls a dog and its a "distinct possibility" that the dog will heel and return to the owner is not "effective control" its a possibility of "effective control"

How many as a percentage of dog owners have their dogs trained to the stage where they will always heel and return? even an estimate?

A Country Voice

The dog could drag you could it not? Escape from your grasp?


Having a well trained dog is having one under effective control.

lrushe

A Country Voice wrote: »

How many as a percentage of dog owners have their dogs trained to the stage where they will always heel and return? even an estimate?

I can't speak for others but I can honestly say, hand on my heart that when I call my dogs all three will return straight away. My youngest dog is almost 15 months old and she has been in training for 10 of those 15 months.

The only thing I would agree with in all of this is the fact that it is wrong to have dogs (any breed) off leash on a street and my three, perfect recall and all, would never be off leash like that. Apart from it scaring some people, it is dangerous for the dogs in question. OP maybe approach the owner with the attitude that you are worried for the dogs safety rather than implying that he is walking vicious animals illegally down the street.

wolfpawnat

thebullkf wrote: »

he was great,:(:(:(:(:(:(loved him to bits,builtlike a horse-great with kids.lick you todeath.but..other dogs..=vicious...seriously a different dog.he drew blood before.So i had to get rid of him:(:mad::(:(:(

I know the feeling, my friend had an Irish Terrier. He got on great with their dog (a spaniel mix b!tch) but other dogs and he was a demon possessed! He was so gentle, while I was heavily pregnant, he wouldn't jump up on me, It shocked everyone, and he would jump up on the couch next to me and protect my bump. But there was nothing they could do about the dog situation.

My friends dad would arrive home after a days work at 11pm and would have his dinner and would have to walk the dogs at all hours just so they could get the walk they needed! But not every owner can do that! Sadly Rugby died not too long ago! He was a lovely dog

seamus

A Country Voice wrote: »

Under the law, theres no room for doubt.
The idea that if an owner calls a dog and its a "distinct possibility" that the dog will heel and return to the owner is not "effective control" its a possibility of "effective control"

I'm afraid you've taken me up wrong here. It's a distinct possibility that many people have their dogs trained to the point where the heel without fail, every time. In terms of training it's not an advanced technique at all. The onus would of course be on any court to disprove the owner's claim that the dog does not have perfect recall.

How many as a percentage of dog owners have their dogs trained to the stage where they will always heel and return? even an estimate?

Impossible to even give an estimate, I'd be way off. In my experience most people don't have their dogs formally trained to do anything except go to the toilet outside and maybe sit on command.