Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dangerous Dogs.........

Options
  • 26-03-2012 11:35am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭


    Not sure if this is the right place for this thread so if not Mods please move!

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16194282

    I’m curious as to people’s opinions on the keeping of dangerous dogs. The video above is from the UK but it clearly shows what some breeds of dog are capable of. In it a dog (a pit bull I think) attacks five police officers mauling them and from reports it badly injured two before Animal Welfare came and put it down. Apparently it had attacked other people previously and the owner’s neighbours had made several complaints about it.

    My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them. I would never totally trust any dog, even my own gorgeous little man at home. He’s the most pleasant docile creature you could meet but I know that if he felt threatened he could turn dangerous in an instant. If for instance some-one tried to break-in to our house I have no doubt he’d make them regret, whether it would be about protecting himself, us, his patch I don’t know.

    I acknowledge that there is an onus on the owner to ensure that the dog is trained as much as possible and to take all necessary precautions to protect the dog and those it comes into contact with. For example with my dog, we used to give him raw hide bones to chew on but we had to stop because he became quite territorial with them. If an owner is particularly abusive to his/her dog or breeds it for the purpose of fighting or guarding then obviously there is a greater danger that the animal could seriously hurt some-one or worse.

    There are however some breeds of dog which, in my opinion, are far more predisposed to be aggressive than others (even when treated well and trained right) and with these, I’m not sure owning one is a good idea. Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

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

    I’ve heard countless people who own one of the breeds listed say ‘ah sure he/she is a dote, he/she wouldn’t hurt a fly’ but I think that’s a foolhardy attitude. The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

    Your opinions?

    Sorry for the long post btw, I just couldn’t say all I wanted to say in a few lines!


«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 41 Gevie Stee


    I f you're a postman all dogs are dangerous :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭stephen_k


    All breeds of dog can be dangerous if mistreated and untrained


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Most of the danger with a lot of dogs is with the idiot attached to the other side of the leash.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Dogs are like children, you don't raise them good then they'll turn into vicious shìts.

    Once had a Collie (The Lassie dog) bite me on the arse when I was a kid. The fùcker got a good amount of arse cheek in his gob, too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Immaculate Pasta


    Replace dangerous dogs teeth with strips of rubber :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Scumbag dog means a scumbag owner

    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Once had a Collie (The Lassie dog) bite me on the arse when I was a kid. The fùcker got a good amount of arse cheek in his gob, too.

    Collies herd, it's their instinct
    That was your own fault, you were moving too slowly :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭deaddonkey


    lol I love how one of the "dangerous dogs" is one the gardai use in search and rescue, drug detection and as a working police dog.

    Man's best friend.
    My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them

    Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭deaddonkey




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Scumbag dog means a scumbag owner

    THIS!

    The problem arises when irresponsible idiots own the dogs as status symbols and deliberately train them to be dangerous.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink



    My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them.

    Is a wild dogs instinct to attack all those people?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    I wonder how long it will take for someone to point out to you (possibly quite forcibly) that nowhere in that document is the word dangerous mentioned.

    Funny how I could have a 14 stone Caucasian Ovcharka that could use a pitbull to clean it's teeth but a rotty would have to be muzzled....


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

    When or where did I ever advocate killing off an entire breed? If a dog attacks a person, yes it should be put down but otherwise you just need to take the proper precautions.
    deaddonkey wrote: »
    Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.

    It's not 'poopy', it's just my opinion. I don't believe you can completely get rid of any animals wild instincts.
    ppink wrote: »
    Is a wild dogs instinct to attack all those people?

    It's a wild dog's instinct to protect itself, to feed when it's starving, to defend it's territory. And if that means attacking and killing people it will do it.

    I believe that instict is still there even in domestic dogs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Op from the sounds of it you probably shouldn't have a dog either. Abusive owners aren't the only problem. Weak owners are just as bad and can raise equally aggressive dogs without even knowing it. And from the sounds of it you are much too passive and distrusting to own a dog.

    I've owned many different breeds of dog and while each breed has a particular overriding instinct I have never known one breed to be more aggressive than another.

    What's needed in this area is a properly legislated and enforced licensing system and proper resources and laws to prevent bad owners having dogs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    wexie wrote: »
    I wonder how long it will take for someone to point out to you (possibly quite forcibly) that nowhere in that document is the word dangerous mentioned.

    Funny how I could have a 14 stone Caucasian Ovcharka that could use a pitbull to clean it's teeth but a rotty would have to be muzzled....

    I know, but by advocating strick measures for owning the breeds mention, the inference is there imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I know, but by advocating strick measures for owning the breeds mention, the inference is there imo.
    Ironically this inference only serves to create the problem the legislation intended to avoid because it means that those who should never own any dog specifically target these breeds for ownership.
    In the UK they completely banned a number of similar breeds of dog, and they found soon after that ownership figures for these animals went through the roof, along with the popularity of dog fighting. This caused them to do a rollback whereby an owner can apply to have the dog, but the legislation still creates the inference that these breeds are dangerous and encourages ownership by dangerous people, so they're considering lifting the ban completely.

    We don't have a major issue with dog attacks in this country so we don't need legislation to deal with it. Our legislation was very much a "follow the leader" exercise after the UK introduced their legislation. There was little thought behind it and no real reason for it. None of the respected animal welfare groups in either jurisdiction support breed-specific legislation.

    What we do have a major issue with is control of dogs in general, and although we have the legislation for it, we don't have the enforcement.


  • Posts: 8,016 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The only dangerous dogs I've ever come across are ones that are owned by scumbags. I heard a story recently that a bloke has been going around with his pitbull to parks in South Dublin getting him to attack other dogs to train him for dog fighting. Have heard of two dogs that have died due to their injuries from said attacks over the last year. Might all be hearsay that it's the same bloke but wouldn't surprise me with some of the stuff you hear on the news. Some people are just pure scum and they should be ones that should be put down. Stricter laws should be in place in both the Ireland and the UK for owning dogs of certain breeds. We've all heard of those terrible stories in the last 2 years in the UK of children that have been mauled to death by certain breeds. All cases they've found serious neglect to the animals before the attacks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭deaddonkey


    When or where did I ever advocate killing off an entire breed? If a dog attacks a person, yes it should be put down but otherwise you just need to take the proper precautions.


    You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?
    Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them.

    So these dogs, which are not restricted in other countries, are only dangerous in Ireland? Why the difference?
    The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

    If you want to make accusations, provide the proof that every dog of every breed on that list is dangerous. Go right ahead. Prove it. It's reality, you said so yourself, prove that all these dogs are dangerous or take your statement back.

    OP, you should never own a dog, because you are incapable of trusting them and will develop a dangerous animal, regardless of breed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,362 ✭✭✭Sergeant


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

    Dogs aren't human though, and any comparison between killing off a species of dog and killing off a race of people is a spurious one.

    Not that I'm advocating killing off a species of dog. As you say, the owner is often the problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    deaddonkey wrote: »
    You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?

    I have no such predjudaces against any group of people and I don't appreciate the accusation.

    All I advocate is that people be a little more willing to accept that SOME dogs are more dangerous than others and need to be treated more cautiously.


    So these dogs, which are not restricted in other countries, are only dangerous in Ireland? Why the difference?

    No difference at all, nor did I say there was one. These breeds should be treated with caution everywhere.


    If you want to make accusations, provide the proof that every dog of every breed on that list is dangerous. Go right ahead. Prove it. It's reality, you said so yourself, prove that all these dogs are dangerous or take your statement back.

    I'll take nothing back, it's my personal opinion. See the video I posted. That dog attacked and mauled five men and it wasn't the first time.

    There was case here years ago where a Rottweiler was stolen and Gardai put a full page warning in the paper about the fact the dog had a trigger word which would make it attack.

    When I was in New York not so long ago there were three separate news stories about Pit Bull attacks.

    I could go on.
    OP, you should never own a dog, because you are incapable of trusting them and will develop a dangerous animal, regardless of breed.

    As I said in my OP I do have a dog and he's the loveliest creature you could meet but I appreciate that he, and all animals, are to be treated with respect and not treated as fluffly little toys.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    All I advocate is that people be a little more willing to accept that SOME dogs could potentially be more dangerous than others and need to be treated more cautiously.

    There, now I agree.

    I don't think there are many posters here that wouldn't agree that some dogs can be very very dangerous. The disagreement is in why that might be. A bad owner could possibly even end up with a vicious Golden Retriever. But that's not the dogs fault.

    And the control of dogs act is just useless. It should be control of dog owners act and go for all breeds. I bet if you tried hard enough you could make a golden retriever vicious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    deaddonkey wrote: »
    Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.
    I wouldn't say we did domesticate the dog in that we decided wolves would make useful pets and made them like us. New research says they more than likely choose to team up with us and domesticated themselves by simply hanging around our food waste and loosing their fear of humans slowly.
    Sergeant wrote: »
    Dogs aren't human though, and any comparison between killing off a species of dog and killing off a race of people is a spurious one.
    Dogs have more in common with humans than just about any other animal. Dogs are one of the only animals to understand pointing outside of the human race. They are adapt at reading human expressions and emotions. Socially they're very much like humans at this stage.

    I think it's fair to then assume they get aggressive for the same reasons (which is mostly true), prolonged physical or mental abuse against people or dogs will nearly always have the same results.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    The unfortunate thing, as one poster put it already, is that if dogs are mistreated or goaded, they will, naturally, become vicious. Like children, they must be taught the difference between right and wrong, and what they can - and cannot - do.

    Also unfortunate is the fact that certain breeds tend to attract a certain owner (albeit a minority) and this exacerbates things even further. We had a problem with a neighbour some years ago. The guy was a complete low-life and loved poncing around with two huge dogs, attempting to intimidate all and sundry. he was a complete joke, but, as the Gardai put it, was more au fait with the law than they were.

    We own an 18-month old Yorkie ourselves. As a breed they have the name of being temperamental and saucy. But only if they are left. He is the most placid little thing and great with everyone, kids included.

    We also had a Yorkie for eleven years, with the same story. But nothing torments me more than seeing some scumbag toerag prancing around with a Staffie or a German Shepherd, using the dogs as some kind of tough guy accessory. Fcuking pricks the lot of them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    pitbulls, rottwielers, and other dogs listed on the dangerous dog list should be muzzled when not supervised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    deaddonkey wrote: »
    You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?
    ScumLord wrote: »
    Dogs have more in common with humans than just about any other animal. Dogs are one of the only animals to understand pointing outside of the human race. They are adapt at reading human expressions and emotions. Socially they're very much like humans at this stage.

    I think it's fair to then assume they get aggressive for the same reasons (which is mostly true), prolonged physical or mental abuse against people or dogs will nearly always have the same results.

    Guys, I can't take your arguments seriously if you insist on making direct comparisons between dogs and humans. Dogs are not human. Dogs are not similar to humans. Saying that a breed should be muzzled is not akin to saying a particular race should be muzzled. It's not "fair to assume" that they get aggressive for the same reasons as we do just because they hang around with us.

    I even agree with most of your ends. Some breeds may only be dangerous by name rather than by fact, but this is not the same as human racism. Dogs do appear to react to our emotions, and can understand pointing. I think that's really interesting and it's part of the reason they make very good pets. I think there's loads of room for fascinating research in there, but even if dogs were proven to be closer in mindset to us than any other species, they'd still be too far away for your comparisons.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 47 Continuity Wolfe Tone


    Some dogs are more dangerous than others, thats just fact. Its mainly because of strength and size, obviously a viscous German Shepard is more dangerous than a terrier (many of those little bastards are viscous! I used to deliver things, leaflets etc, it was the small dogs you had to look out for) simply because it can do much more damage.

    With that in mind I think there should be restrictions on "dangerous dogs", restrictions on who can own them. Maybe have a test required for prospective owners or something like that. But that throws up practical problems.

    My friend has an Irish Wolfhound who I am pretty sure could kill the entire household if it set it's mind to it, luckily Irish Wolfhounds, and this one especially is really friendly.

    Dogs can be weapons in the wrong hands, especially big/strong dogs. SO there needs to be restrictions on who can own them. However there are practical problems like that so mandating that the "Most dangerous" dogs wear muzzles is a necessary precaution.

    As for certain dogs being predisposed to being aggressive, I think there is some truth in that, but in a good environment that should never become an issue.

    Animals at the end of the day are animals. Many dog owners forget that. Humans must come first and with powerful dogs which may have been bred for fighting etc, it's better to be safe than sorry and agree with certain types of dogs having restrictions (i.e muzzles).

    Its a case of bad owners ruining it for everyone I guess, but better safe than sorry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭jupiterjack


    there is no such thing as a dangerous dog but dangerous owners who through their own life conditioning can inturn have an influence on the behaviour of any breed of dog. so to the original poster who is a dog owner but yet would not consider owning a dog on the restricted list is somewhat bewildering to me. try not to be so influenced by media reports.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭2ndcoming


    The list is a bit ridiculous in that it considers Staffs and such as dangerous but makes no mention of numerous other bull terrier/ bulldog types like Cane Corso or Dogo Argentino that are arguably more dangerous in the wrong hands than the ones that are listed, but by virtue of the fact that they're not listed, could potentially be sought out now to avoid the hassle associated with the listed ones.

    From my experience Rottweilers are one of the most intelligent and loyal breeds of dog, and probably less likely to bite anyone than a Jack Russell.

    Am I right in thinking these laws only apply to people living in Council/Corporation houses?


  • Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭Melted


    that list is a joke i was bit twice in my life by dogs and that were collies who were neglected and left to rot by their owners. ive raised a few dogs and they have never become so viciouse including collies and collie croses.

    funily enough some of the nicest dogs and well trained ive met were akitas (american and japanese) rottweillers staffies and ridgebacks?! :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭deaddonkey


    Zab wrote: »
    Guys, I can't take your arguments seriously if you insist on making direct comparisons between dogs and humans.

    a dog's life is a life too. Why should their freedom be restricted (muzzle, lead, put to sleep), when they have done nothing wrong, just because some people with prejudices want to label a whole breed as dangerous because it suits them? statistically some races of humans are more dangerous, statistically some breeds of dog are more dangerous, but no one for a moment is suggesting we imprison certain racial groups because of what might happen. Well sorry guys if you can't even see the comparison then you are very, very blind to your prejudices and moral problems. Hey it's just a dog.

    You can't have one set of morals for one species and not for another. So we've actually reached the point where we can effectively say all members of that species/social group/race is dangerous, we can ban them, we can euthanise without legal recourse, we can restrict their freedom, and if you try and challenge it, the best anyone can do is "they're dogs and you can't compare". Is that really the best we can do?

    Fear and stereotypes is what has led to the greatest human tragedies in history, but hey, don't worry, it's just a disposable dog.

    Humans make me sick.

    Where they burn books eventually they will burn people.


Advertisement