Restricred breed list - omfg

Vince32

I just stumbled across this and I was shocked and appalled at the length of this thing.:eek:
1. AIREDALE TERRIER
2. AKBASH
3. AKITA
4. ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5. ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6. ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7. AMERICAN BULLDOG
8. AMERICAN HUSKY
9. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11. AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12. ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13. ARIKARA DOG
14. AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15. AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16. BELGIAN MALINOIS
17. BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18. BELGIAN TURVUREN
19. BLUE HEELER
20. BOERBUL
21. BORZOI
22. BOSTON TERRIER
23. BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24. BOXER
25. BULLDOG
26. BULL TERRIER
27. BULL MASTIFF
28. CANE CORSO
29. CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30. CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31. CHINESE SHAR PEI
32. CHOW-CHOW
33. COLORADO DOG
34. DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35. DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36. DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37. ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39. ESKIMO DOG
40. ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41. FILA BRASILIERO
42. FOX TERRIER
43. FRENCH BULLDOG
44. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46. GREENLAND HUSKY
47. GREAT DANE
48. GREAT PYRANEES
49. ITALIAN MASTIFF
50. KANGAL DOG
51. KEESHOND
52. KOMONDOR
53. KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54. KUVAZ
55. LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56. LEONBERGER
57. MASTIFF
58. NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59. NEWFOUNDLAND
60. OTTERHOUND
61. PRESA DE CANARIO
62. PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63. PUG
64. ROTTWEILER
65. SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66. SAINT BERNARD
67. SAMOYED
68. SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69. SIBERIAN HUSKY
70. SPANISH MASTIFF
71. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72. TIMBER SHEPHERD
73. TOSA INU
74. TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75. WOLF SPITZ


Can someone explain this to me?


Dog has to be Muzzled / Neutered //spayed / on a leash no longer than 2 meters.


This seems like a joke that has gone too far, I found this list on: http://peekaboo420420.hubpages.com/hub/List_Of_75_Banned_Or_Restricted_Breeds_Is_your_Dog_On_The_New_List
and I have to say I find the whole thing disgusting.


But perhaps someone can clear this up for me, because at the moment I don't know what to think !!

scudzilla

i think that list is missing Poodle, Chihuahua and Westies :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Delancey

I think that list is probably not genuine - ffs French Bulldog and Pug ?!!

sambuka41

Vince32 wrote: »

45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER


63. PUG

These two stood out to me A pug, really?? This isn't the list thats in place at the moment is it?

ISDW

I don't know what the site is Vince, but that is NOT the Irish Restricted Breed list.

belongtojazz

Looks like that list is American and lists the breeds that have any restriction on them including insurance excess.
It is not the restricted breed list currently (stupidly) enforced here.

SingItOut

I saw this list on another site, pretty sure its just a joke.

Vince32

Well it's a relief that this list doesn't apply in Ireland, I was really confused when I seen it, and thought it better to ask some people who know.

Thanks

Taceom

What does 'Restricted Breed List' mean?

pH

38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL

About time too!

Discodog

According to this study Chihuahuas bit Vets more than other breeds. It total debunks the concept of restricted breeds :

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=613820

are you serious

Taceom wrote: »

What does 'Restricted Breed List' mean?

The Restricted Breed list is in many peoples opinion (mostly the people who actually own a restricted dog) a list made up by uneducated people who do not know a lot about the dogs which have been put on this list.

It is a list whichhas been set in in law and it has its own set of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to if you own a dog on this list and if you do not are liable to a fine if found in contravention of these laws.

Vince32

righto, I did some more digging and found this.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html

it's a hell of alot shorter than the previous monstrosity.

Vince32

The best I can tell, the Restricted Breeds, are animals with a high potential for attacking, I remember cases where children were killed and a Lady had her face eaten by dogs.

The Restriction is, you may own one if,
you have a licence
you keep the dog on a leash shorter than 2 meters in public places
you keep the dog muzzled in public places.
the handler is older than 16 years and is capable of controlling the animal when excited.

there may be more but that's all I can find atm.

Lets be fair, it makes sense, safety first.

piperh

Vince32 wrote: »

The best I can tell, the Restricted Breeds, are animals with a high potential for attacking, I remember cases where children were killed and a Lady had her face eaten by dogs.

The Restriction is, you may own one if,
you have a licence
you keep the dog on a leash shorter than 2 meters in public places
you keep the dog muzzled in public places.
the handler is older than 16 years and is capable of controlling the animal when excited.

there may be more but that's all I can find atm.

Lets be fair, it makes sense, safety first.

Yes lets be fair and make it so it applies to all dogs or none at all, after all its not the breed that makes a dog more likely to bite. Safety first and all

belongtojazz

Vince32 wrote: »

The best I can tell, the Restricted Breeds, are animals with a high potential for attacking, I remember cases where children were killed and a Lady had her face eaten by dogs.

The Restriction is, you may own one if,
you have a licence
you keep the dog on a leash shorter than 2 meters in public places
you keep the dog muzzled in public places.
the handler is older than 16 years and is capable of controlling the animal when excited.

there may be more but that's all I can find atm.

Lets be fair, it makes sense, safety first.

No no my terriers and springer in the right ( Wrong) circumstances are probably more of a safety risk than your average dog on that list!
It is just a random list dreamt up by politicians who read too much tabloid newspapers!

Melion

A boxer??? Really?

Vince32

yeah I agree in part, but that's how the law makers want us to handle our animals, so that's what I'll do if I ever own one.

anyways thanks for pointing me toward the correct list, and sorry for stirring an old pot, I know a lot of people don't believe there should be a list and its a heated subject.

I just heard about this today, and I wanted clarification.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html

toadfly

Vince32 wrote: »

Lets be fair, it makes sense, safety first.

Are you for real? Would you be saying that if huskys were on the list and your dog couldnt be let off lead in public? Could never go swimming? Had to be muzzled when in public from birth?

Still think its fair?

I have a staffy, she is the gentliest dog I have ever met, everyone that meets her falls in love. Including my family who were afraid of her when I got her first. That ridiculous list is utter bull$h!t and the sooner they get rid of it the better.

axle108

Any dog can bite, especially if it is not trained or socialised properly, isolated, neglected or encouraged to behave aggressively.

When a powerfull breed attacks it is more likely to have serious consequences, but some breeds from the smaller group can be just as aggressive but their bites have little effect so the incidence isn’t reported and a distorted image is presented about aggressive dogs.

Every dog is different and won’t always fit its breed stereotype: just because its breed is generally considered to be gentle or sweet natured doesn’t guarantee that your dog will be the same.

Interestingly a quick search on this site typing in aggressive dogs, throws up breeds, those on the restricted list but many of which are not.

Vince32

I don't know if that will solve the problem, I certainly believe that maulings should never happen, but how can that be accomplished?

Should we start making owners pass a theory test before they are granted licence to buy or breed?

Is it fair to refuse a dog a swim, or run in a park, no I don't think so, is it fair to take preventive measures to ensure a child, adult or other dog isn't harmed by my dog or someone else's? to me it is. If the husky was on the list, I'd get the muzzle.

If I offend, I am sorry.

Discodog

Vince32 wrote: »

I don't know if that will solve the problem, I certainly believe that maulings should never happen, but how can that be accomplished?

Should we start making owners pass a theory test before they are granted licence to buy or breed?

Is it fair to refuse a dog a swim, or run in a park, no I don't think so, is it fair to take preventive measures to ensure a child, adult or other dog isn't harmed by my dog or someone else's? to me it is. If the husky was on the list, I'd get the muzzle.

If I offend, I am sorry.

Dogs bites are usually caused by misinformation. Often the dog is trying to tell us something & we don't listen.

Some Countries have actually considered competence testing for pet owners.

I have never found any info as to how the "restricted breed" list was drawn up. It is totally bizarre & makes no sense. It is yet another piece of law that has been clearly drawn up by people who know absolutely nothing about the subject.

The Sweeper

Vince32, breed specific legislation has been proven useless in a number of areas globally.

It has been introduced and rescinded in Germany, Holland and Italy, a number of states in the US and in Calgary, which is in Alberta Canada. Calgary has some of the most famous animal management laws in the world because they reduced their bite statistics considerably by throwing out breed specific legislation and introducing a broad range of measures to tackle the problem properly.

The UK have had breed specific legislation for 20 years and have just conducted an expensive public consultation to review its usefuleness and popularity. Lord Redesdale has tabled a paper for discussion on rescinding the act completely and replacing it with a set of regulations that place the onus on individual owners to control their individual dogs.

It may seem logical - muzzle the dog, protect everyone, but this is not, in fact, how it works.

I'll put a scenario to you - some dogs are timid and react very badly to a muzzle. (Some owners have seen similar reactions when trying out head-collar walking aides like haltis -the dog will simply freeze and refuse to move.) So the owner will not walk their dog, or walks them without a muzzle at 5am or 11pm or somesuch.

The result of this is that the dog is poorly socialised - denied access to the hustle and bustle of normal walk times, the dog becomes even more reactive to the sight of another dog, or a child on a bike, or a teenager on a skateboard. The dog's anxiety builds as it matures because it is not exposed to these stimuli.

Then that dog escapes the owners yard one day - and it becomes a nuisance. Poorly socialised, reactive and running free, it will not return when called because the owner never worked on recall with it because it was never walked in an environment with distractions, and it's highly stimulated by everything it sees. It chases a child on a bike, barks at two teenagers who try to catch it, becomes very agitated and finally when the warden comes to trap it, it's so wound up and frightened it goes for him.

And then everyone says 'Ah, see? Dogs of that type - vicious they are, that's why they have to be muzzled.'

The solution is to put in place an animal management law similar to that used in Calgary. There are no bad breeds, only bad dogs. Dog registration is absolutely compulsory and the money collected through registering the dogs is used to fund some of the costs of implementing the laws. The cost of registering an intact dog is higher than a neutered dog.

Dogs are classified - plain old dog, nuisance dog and aggressive dog. The registration fees for nuisance and aggressive dogs are higher (in the case of an aggressive dog, considerably higher). The classifications of 'nuisance' and 'aggressive' are placed on the dog based on its behaviour.

If your dog howls all night, scares the wits out of people passing your house by hurling itself at the gates and barks furiously at the postman, people can complain to the council, the complaint will be investigated and your dog will be classified 'nuisance'. Your registration fee will go up. However if you can show you've done some training and taken measures to address the nuisance behaviour, you can request the dog be assessed and your registration fee will come back down again. Money - the greatest of incentives!

A dog classified 'aggressive' would be one that actually went for someone, bailed them up so they could not move, snarling, barking, nipping, hackles raised, no control, so on. I believe an aggressive dog can never be reclassified. To give you an idea, there is a tenfold difference in the registration fee for a plain old dog and one for an aggressive dog. ($50 vs $500? Something similar.)

All complaints about nuisance and aggressive behaviour are investigated to ascertain the reasoning behind the behaviour - bites are investigated thoroughly to find out why the dog bit. This information is being used by Calgary to identify ways in which they can make the community safer (e.g. education in schools for children on how to behave around a dog - never touch it while it's eating, if it takes something of yours call mum and dad instead of trying to get it back yourself, never wake it if it's sleeping, so on).

Calgary's bite statistics plummeted when they overhauled their laws and threw out breed specific legislation. The statistics are climbing up again now, but Calgary maintain this is because the next step is for them to encourage people to report a dog bite in their own home. So if your family dog bites your kid, you tell the warden - they're not out to take the dog from you, they'll come and find out precisely what happened, give you pointers for avoiding it and help you through it.

It's the most progressive animal management legislation in the Western world, and it's working.

axle108

Vince32. Its a delicate subject as you know, the restricted breed list. As for anyone taking offence, i for one welcome the discussion.

I would be more in favour of ownership of a dog, requires attending approved training.
Then we could have a restricted owners list instead of a breed list. LOL

How it would be enforced would be difficult to say the least. But at least we'd have a lot more happier dogs with owners and less problems.

moving_home

Vince32 wrote: »

I don't know if that will solve the problem, I certainly believe that maulings should never happen, but how can that be accomplished?

Should we start making owners pass a theory test before they are granted licence to buy or breed?

Is it fair to refuse a dog a swim, or run in a park, no I don't think so, is it fair to take preventive measures to ensure a child, adult or other dog isn't harmed by my dog or someone else's? to me it is. If the husky was on the list, I'd get the muzzle.

If I offend, I am sorry.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. If a husky gets put on the restricted breed list tomorrow that does not make your dog any more dangerous than she was today. Likewise with the breeds that are on it. It's nonsensical

2qk4u

We have a Staffy and a miniature Poodle, the poodle would bite you a lot sooner than the staffy, My wife has been bitten twice by dogs and neither are on that list. If a dog has the potential to do damage due to size or strength then maybe there is a case for training or social classes, I dont muzzle my staffy in public because if she was to be attacked by another dog she should be able to defend herself, does that make me irresponsible ?
I think its the owner that is the problem in many cases.

eoinburke67

any dog can be agressive and bite people... there should be a restricted owners lists. cant stand people getting rottweilers... and GSD and dont give them a proper outlet and the dog get excited/frustrated and takes it out on someone. without doubt, false stereotypes surround these breeds, if only people knew what they are really like! so playfull and great companions not a bad bone in their bodys just bad trainers! there is the od acception and some but few are naturally agressive but can be corrected early and not carry through to adulthood

Vince32

I don't know what to say here, I can see both sides of the fence, I guess the only way to reverse the law would be to prove somehow that it doesn't work as intended or at all, or to show it makes the situation worse in general terms.

Can we start a petition to make a Theory Test for dog owners, general and breed specific, and have a "no dog list" because anything that can save a child from being ravaged by a dog, or save the postman's ankles has to be a good thing.

PIC DELETED

This shows the amount of 0-4 year olds who were treated in hospitals in 2010, and other age groups. How the injury's occurred isn't listed but if the dogs were muzzled would the number be this high?
http://dangerousdogsact.com/43/dangerous-dogs-act-information/uk-dog-attack-statistics/

EDIT: If owners were properly educated the result might also be lower, but what's easier to control? insuring the owners learn to handle their pets, or just muzzling them all.

anyway, it is what it is there is no point in rehashing old arguments, I just wanted to illustrate why I think a muzzle is a good thing (sometimes)

ISDW

I must be missing it, but where does it say what breeds were involved in any of those hospital incidents?

I spent 4 days in hospital thanks to a husky bite, does that mean that all huskies are dangerous? It was an accident, he didn't go to bite me, but as the bite got infected, it needed a hospital stay (my own fault for being allergic to penicillin). But that could feasibly have been put down as a life threatening attack, but it wasn't. Statistics can be manipulated anyway you want.

I'd also rather have statitics and reports from Ireland if possible, not America and the UK, I don't live in either of those places.

Vince32

the damn pic didn't load...

But it is about dog bites / strikes, not about breeds or specific types of dog, It just says 240+ 0-4 were bitten, and almost the same amount of 5-9. These kids cannot possibly understand a dogs body language other than a snarl.

Education is a great idea, and I wish more would read about the dogs they buy, I myself rushed into buying my dog, but in 3 weeks I have spent almost all my free time trying to source info.
These kids need either better parents, or a muzzle on the dogs, not all dogs will bite, of course not, and when they do it might not even be intentional, but some will.

This is just how I think, the dog is 2nd to human safety no matter how much I love it, she could even be destroyed if she bites the wrong person.

I've been wrong before, I could easily eat a slice of humble pie I'm not that proud,vI'm not 100% up on the facts of the topic, but from what I know, I prefer to put people first.

ISDW

But whats the point of having a list of restricted breeds if you don't know that those particular breeds are more likely to bite or not? It doesn't make any sense. Thats what this thread is about.

There are some pounds in Ireland that won't rehome stray huskies or malamutes because they are 'dangerous'. This happens to a lot of staffies, rotties etc, I'd love to see the proof that any of these breeds are more dangerous than others.

Yes of course there can be dangerous dogs, those that will bite people, but as far as I am concerned, there are no dangerous breeds.

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

EDIT: If owners were properly educated the result might also be lower, but what's easier to control? insuring the owners learn to handle their pets, or just muzzling them all.

anyway, it is what it is there is no point in rehashing old arguments, I just wanted to illustrate why I think a muzzle is a good thing (sometimes)

Muzzle all dogs? Where do you stop then, should we start muzzling cats too, and hamsters, and rabbits and horses? Because I'v been bitten by all of those but never a dog!
Muzzles are a good thing, I don't disagree with your there but I don't think there should be a blunt x,y or z breeds have to wear them, it should be that if your dog needs a muzzle it wears one, but why muzzle friendly dogs just because of how they look?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some other breeds suggested to be put on the restricted breeds list when it was being brought in, boxers and english bulldogs if I'm not mistaken? I would love to know why they chose the breeds they did when deciding on the list, I would bet my big toe that there were <100 akita's, tosa's and pit bulls in this country at the time yet now they've rocketed in popularity. If it was on the basis that if a dog attacked these breeds were the most likely to do damage then why not put every dog over 30kg on it, even a labrador sized dog can do serious damage.

Ask anyone who works with a wide variety of dog breeds on a regular basis (vets, nurses, groomers, trainers, rescues etc.) and they will all tell you that it's never the breed, it's always the owner. Some will say 'it's westies, jrts, etc. that you've to watch' but again it's because of the types of people that these breeds attract, people who want a small cute dog that they believe needs very little exercise and training because it's small and what do you end up with a wound up unsocialised little ankle snapper. But as with the restricted breeds put these dogs with knowledgable owners who will train, socialize and exercise them and you have some of the friendliest dogs!
Apologies for my longwinded way of explaining it but to summarize it's all down to the 2-legged animal on the other end of the lead!

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

the damn pic didn't load...

But it is about dog bites / strikes, not about breeds or specific types of dog, It just says 240+ 0-4 were bitten, and almost the same amount of 5-9. These kids cannot possibly understand a dogs body language other than a snarl.

Education is a great idea, and I wish more would read about the dogs they buy, I myself rushed into buying my dog, but in 3 weeks I have spent almost all my free time trying to source info.
These kids need either better parents, or a muzzle on the dogs, not all dogs will bite, of course not, and when they do it might not even be intentional, but some will.

This is just how I think, the dog is 2nd to human safety no matter how much I love it, she could even be destroyed if she bites the wrong person.

I've been wrong before, I could easily eat a slice of humble pie I'm not that proud,vI'm not 100% up on the facts of the topic, but from what I know, I prefer to put people first.

Can I just say that the majority of dog bites happen in the dog's own home (I have no statistics or proof to back that up and I'm too lazy and tired to go looking right now), so how do you stop these bites? Dog's can't wear muzzles 24/7.

Vince32

I'm not playing Devils advocate here, there may well be no dangerous breeds, there is a law that says these breeds must be controlled, that isn't optional.

All I'm trying to say on this thread is while dogs have access to kids who don't know better they can and should be muzzled, even if the dog has no prior history.

If an adult gets bitten he would probably just laugh it off, understanding the dog responded to elements in its environment or a prior disposition.

If anything, either give owners the "owners test" or make sure the dog can't hurt the kids. There is no excuse for a dog biting a kid, even if the kid poked it in the eye and pulled its ears while grabbing its tail and singing a westlife song. It should never be possible.

That's my point, the list is a pointless exercise I think my first post was shock and disgust, and it's a piece of "feel good" legislation, but as owners, we should always put safety first, its only fair. If you think its fair for the kids to learn the hard way that's fine.

You raised some very good points, but all I really wanted to know was if the Husky was on the list and what age it should start wearing the muzzle if it was.

I don't know how I got drawn into this debate, but I must leave it here, please feel free to continue to discuss pro's and con's.

Thanks for the information

ISDW

So basically you're saying that all dogs should be muzzled at all times around children.

Fair enough.

john t

Taceom wrote: »

What does 'Restricted Breed List' mean?

restricted breed list is a list of 10 dog breeds and includes cross breed of breed list, they have restrictions for lead lenght , age of walker, muzzle . and such....

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

I'm not playing Devils advocate here, there may well be no dangerous breeds, there is a law that says these breeds must be controlled, that isn't optional.

All I'm trying to say on this thread is while dogs have access to kids who don't know better they can and should be muzzled, even if the dog has no prior history.

If an adult gets bitten he would probably just laugh it off, understanding the dog responded to elements in its environment or a prior disposition.

If anything, either give owners the "owners test" or make sure the dog can't hurt the kids. There is no excuse for a dog biting a kid, even if the kid poked it in the eye and pulled its ears while grabbing its tail and singing a westlife song. It should never be possible.

That's my point, the list is a pointless exercise I think my first post was shock and disgust, and it's a piece of "feel good" legislation, but as owners, we should always put safety first, its only fair. If you think its fair for the kids to learn the hard way that's fine.

You raised some very good points, but all I really wanted to know was if the Husky was on the list and what age it should start wearing the muzzle if it was.

I don't know how I got drawn into this debate, but I must leave it here, please feel free to continue to discuss pro's and con's.

Thanks for the information

Just about the highlighted bit there, I'v said it before but dogs are the only species that we have this hysterical dogs must never do wrong, exactly as I said before if a horse were to kick someone (whether because it was teased as you describe or just because it's acting the b*llox) you just curse it off and learn from the experience, people just accept that horses are animals and sometimes animals kick, bite etc. A lot of people seem to believe that dogs are humans in furry coats and must abide by the same rules we do, they're animals just like horses, cats, rabbits, hamsters, cattle and sheep are. People would be doing well if they kept this in mind the next time their darling three year old is pulling out of the dog poking it in the eye and pulling it's ears.

As you have learned huskies are not on the restricted breeds list, but if that list were ever to be revised I have a strong feeling huskies would probably be added to it because of the amount of idiots buying them too look hard with their wolf! :rolleyes: So while your breed isin't on the list just keep in mind that some day it could (but hopefully not).

Graces7

Zapperzy wrote: »

Just about the highlighted bit there, I'v said it before but dogs are the only species that we have this hysterical dogs must never do wrong, exactly as I said before if a horse were to kick someone (whether because it was teased as you describe or just because it's acting the b*llox) you just curse it off and learn from the experience, people just accept that horses are animals and sometimes animals kick, bite etc. A lot of people seem to believe that dogs are humans in furry coats and must abide by the same rules we do, they're animals just like horses, cats, rabbits, hamsters, cattle and sheep are. People would be doing well if they kept this in mind the next time their darling three year old is pulling out of the dog poking it in the eye and pulling it's ears.

As you have learned huskies are not on the restricted breeds list, but if that list were ever to be revised I have a strong feeling huskies would probably be added to it because of the amount of idiots buying them too look hard with their wolf! :rolleyes: So while your breed isin't on the list just keep in mind that some day it could (but hopefully not).

Safety needs to be first. Idealism is all well and good, but this is Ireland and we need to be realistic. I saw with the collie how terrified folk can be re a dog with what was a simple nip from a young neglected dog who should have been trained. Our LLs wife was so scared she would never get out of the car near the house. Years later; collie was seen as dangerous which is why she was dumped as she was.

Yet the LL would bring his kids to play with her and never an issue. Fear is an interesting thing.

We need also to know that however "wrong" the law is, it is the law and if you break it you must know and accept the possible consequences.

Some here have said that dogs do get used to a halti or muzzle. Certainly collie got accustomed very easily to a collar and lead when we took her in. There is no need for a dog to be "unsocialised" thus. Just takes a bit of time and a positive and firm attitude.

Safety of children is paramount, as Vince avers. This is the rule now, here. Ireland is light years behind in animal welfare..

getz

Vince32 wrote: »

yeah I agree in part, but that's how the law makers want us to handle our animals, so that's what I'll do if I ever own one.

anyways thanks for pointing me toward the correct list, and sorry for stirring an old pot, I know a lot of people don't believe there should be a list and its a heated subject.

I just heard about this today, and I wanted clarification.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html

you can ignore that list,it was updated in 1997,on the old list some [i know all about dogs] politician put the bulldog down as a restricted breed,that was expected to be muzzled ?.and it was pointed out to the minister, [1] how do you muzzle a bulldog and [2] has he ever heard of a bully biting anyone,also to highlight the bully muzzling problem,a dublin lad walked his bully with a muzzle tied on its backside, the doggy press had a field day,

Irishchick

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

toadfly

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

Nothing that makes sense. Media hype mainly from what I can figure.

DamagedTrax

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

more to the point what is the criteria to enforce it?

ive been stopped twice by police in inchicore asking about my girl - what breed is she, is she chipped etc.. i walk her with short lead, muzzle and harness.

i walk her once a week in my parents area (much more upmarket than inchicore) with a longer lead and with the muzzle just hanging from her neck, ive had police stop and rub her but ive never once been questioned.

from my experience the RB list has little to do with dogs and everything to do with your social situation.

getz

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

well a councillor in gory when asked about the restricted breed list,he said in the press,i think all ugly dogs should be muzzled,i can sympathize with him,i have seen his wife.

Discodog

I tried to find out how the RB list was drawn up & all I heard that it was a Dublin Councillor who suggested the breeds. People need to realise that most of our politicians do not have a clue - even the one's that support welfare. For example Gormley said, in a debate, that microchips went into a dog's ears ! Afterwards it was explained to him that they went in the neck yet a few day's later he was referring to microchips in the ears again.

The Canadian idea is good in principle but would be a nightmare here. You can only have competence tests, sliding scale registrations etc if the implementers & enforcers are knowledgeable. You only need to view the dog license figures to see how ineffective any future legislation would be.

Another example is the discussions that preceded the DBEB. Part of the Bill will increase the cost of dog licenses - a lot of people missed this bit ! Many lobbied for the idea of a much higher license fee with reductions for vaccinating, neutering & microchipping. Needless to say the idea was ignored & the fee just increased.

EDIT: This was after the restricted breed debate & instigated by Sargent in 2002. It gives an indication to their way of thinking. Some excerpts:

Against this background. it seems that the relatively significant costs which would accompany the introduction of any obligatory system of microchipping would not be commensurate with the benefits to be realised from such a system.

I refer to a letter I recently received from a female constituent. Her husband, whose right arm was amputated, was attacked by two bull mastiffs belonging to a neighbour. In regard to the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, she recommends that a special licence be required for ownership of the breeds that need to be muzzled when in public and that the facilities in which these dogs must be kept be inspected and approved by the relevant authorities before the licence is granted, and that that apply annually.

Any dog warden will tell the Minister that they live not knowing how they will cope with the violence they encounter. I heard of a dog warden who was called to a house to take away a Staffordshire bull terrier. When he arrived 13 such terriers appeared and he could restrain only one with the standard issue restraining pole.

There are many examples of horrific attacks, such as the one in Whitestown in Blanchardstown where a German shepherd dog viciously savaged [506]a 15 year old boy. Other breeds, like springer spaniels, are not in the dangerous category but have carried out horrific attacks on young children.

This is the worrying bit that suggested more rigorous breed specific legislation:

Mr. N. Ahern: I accept the Deputy's point. Sometimes these replies do not seem to answer a burning question. It is an horrific problem for someone to have. I will see what can be done to ensure more enforcement and penalties for those who do not observe the law. Perhaps we could also look at going further. Laws must be enforced.


http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2002/11/27/00025.asp

Discodog

So after much searching I found the answer on ...........Boards

It was Joe Costello & EGAR tried to raise the debate here & it is a riveting read !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055039260

Vojera

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html

I was wondering, on both this (the 1998 revision) and the old one, "ban dogs" are mentioned. Pardon my ignorance, but what do they mean by that? Are there certain breeds that aren't allowed in Ireland at all? And if so, what are they? Or are they actually a breed?

Discodog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandog

boxerly

boxers?aaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Discodog

boxerly wrote: »

boxers?aaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes but these idiots don't know their breeds. I have had four fabulous Boxers & there would always be people that were scared of them. Does your Bulldog bite ? Joe Costello campaigned for BSL, which results in innocent dogs being killed, yet he has supported the Greyhound bill. There is no consistency.

All it would need is for a Boxer to be accused of attacking a child & they could easily end up on a list.

DamagedTrax

Discodog wrote: »

All it would need is for a Boxer to be accused of attacking a child & they could easily end up on a list.

and it could happen very soon

there are a few very big boxers popping up around my area lately and only young lads behind the lead. the dogs are taking them for a walk, no training at all.

boxers are loveable playful nutjobs but they can be big powerful dogs and need training just as much as the breeds on the restricted list

luckyfrank

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/