A pit bull dog below in Wexford the latest episode of a child been savaged . Are these dogs suitable for pets .
PS The only people with Pitbulls or similar in our town are involved in drug dealing and or general criminality.
Threadbanned Posters:
xhomelezz
= Cross breed and should be banned.
There is a video and it is not a Presa. In the video the dog was being encouraged to rag/hold onto a toy by a fairly rough character.
What did the guards do when the previous attack was reported? You'd hope all necessary measures were taken to get this dog off the streets.
The owner should be imprisoned...absolutely deplorable act of negligence.
He should face prison
The pictures suggest a Presa Canario, not a Pit Bull Terrier or breed cross at all.
I saw a video of the alleged dog involved & it certainly does not look like a Pit Bull. The video itself is disturbing & the dog looks like it is one of the so called XL Bully types. I say type as these are not a recognised breed though they do have their own support organisation. They are frequently seen out with some very undesirable owners & are the latest fashionable dog.
I'm not even sure if the Restricted Breed list covers ownership of these dogs.
Too many people just bandy about the word Pit Bull when they are not sure of the type of dog involved
The path of that child and his family's lives are ruined. The poor fella will suffer the life long long consequences.
I've been having robust debate with my missus who has owned 2 pitbulls. She absolutely adores them and no doubt was a wonderful owner to them. But for me they are too risky a breed, I'd never have one in the house or around kids and this story and many others just solidify my position on that.
Ban them. Simple as that. Including cross-breeds.
Denmark did it all the way back in 1991 due to too many incidents like this.
"Punish the deed, not the breed." = Give me a break. Its up there with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". 1 incidents is 1 too many. Time to get the finger out.
These breeds need to made extinct, end of story.
You have other dogs on the dangerous list like German Sheppard's, but when trained and handled correctly these dogs do great work, like with the police etc.
What do Pit Bulls bring to the table?
Every time this happens the fans jump to the defence of pit bulls with a bunch of whataboutery.
They are exactly the same as the "it's not the gun its mental illness" shower in the US.
And just like them, there is no amount of children who must be mauled and maimed which will change this warped thought process.
There is NO justifiable reason to own or propagate this breed or their hybrids.
Reasoning with these people doesn't work, so legislation must be enacted to make owning one of these dogs a crime with punishment similar to owning an unlicensed firearm.
Up to 10 years in jail might concentrate their minds.
It's past the time for discussion.
Owners need to be made to be responsible.
Bad owners should be punished before any dog does any damage like this.
Prevention - No off lead in a housing estate, ever.
There is not enough enforcment as it is, just putting down a dog afterwards.
Would like to see more owners, fined, jailed & banned for having a dog if they cannot act respsonibly.
Ownership is a privilege, not a right.
(Dog owner & lover)
It would now be a class D fine, up to €1000 on summary conviction. Still a pittance for someone who should have known the danger this dog presented but still let the dog out of control in a public area.
I've seen owners paying over a thousand euros in fines per dog (there were occasional cases where 2 dogs were involved), which had stacked up relating to dogs not being under effectual control, not being muzzled, not being on lead, not having ID tags etc, plus in the same cases the judge imposing damages of up to €8000 to be paid to the victim to cover medical expenses.
In some of these cases, the dogs were ordered to be euthanased, in others, they weren't.
For interest's sake, in a couple of cases, the owners were held further liable for the cost of keeping their seized dogs impounded whilst appeals were heard, which came into several thousand euros.
It's not just pitbulls. It's many different types of dogs. People ultimately don't mind the cost as long as they have their pets.
These maulings happen weekly in the US and it's almost ALWAYS a pitbull or a pitbull mix. How people can still say it's not the breed when the mountain of evidence points that it IS the breed. It's not just kids they maul they also maul a staggering amount of smaller pets such as dogs and cats because their prey drive is sky high and when they get out unleashed turn absolutely feral
Heartbroken for the child and his family :(
Ye i agree with you ,
Iv never had a dog breed as intelligent as a GS , fantastic family dog but need space & need your time especially when they are young .
Section 21 deals with the civil liabilities, not criminal ones. My post was in response to a point regarding criminal offence.
Out of interest, what penalty did you observe in court when you saw these owners being prosecuted quite severely? The act does not mention a prison sentence of more than a month for any offence defined within it.
…German Shepherds, in the main, are kept by people who know dogs, respect dogs and have spent the time training that dog to a high standard. GS’s are very intelligent and treated correctly will make great pets, albeit a pet that will always need to be respected.
Many owners of pit bull type breeds, don’t tend to have the same understanding respect or commitment to training their dogs. They seem to be more of a fad or a fashion statement to go with their chav clothes and gold neck chains. Yes there are responsible pit bull owners out there but there are many who aren’t - more so than say irresponsible GS owners- far more
The problem is you could have a Yorkshire terrier and a bull breed living in the same house and the yorkie could be the most vicious little thing and the bull breed with a wonderful temperament.
The yorkie could nip you 100 times and not do any damage but if the bull breed does turn once it’s strength means it unfortunately can do serious damage . More reason to have a responsible owner for these powerful dogs . It’s not the dogs fault it’s the amount of dopes and fake hard men that own the breeds unfortunately
Pit bulls should be banned in any self-respecting country.
They're monsters, not pets. Might as well have a alligator in the back yard and hope it doesn't attack someone because it has the title of "pet".
They're fierce ugly as well. Why on Earth would anyone want one to begin with?
Regarding the OP, the dog should be put down and its owner jailed for a minimum of 5-years.
I think the title should read "Dangerous Dog-Owners"...because the owners are the problem. No dog & I mean NO dog should be allowed to roam loose in public because no matter how much you think your "little precious" wouldn't harm a fly, trust me, they can & do. Not all people like dogs, some are afraid of dogs & dog owners should respect that. It is not right to "inflict" discomfort on others just because you want your "snookums" to be able to run around freely...
I am a GS owner, he lives in a 10metre x 8metre fenced dog run (I know, not everyone has this space & I am lucky...but then dogs, and big dogs particularly, deserve big spaces!), my dog is never "off lead"& I use a gentle lead halter when I walk him so his muzzle is always kept closed...despite this I have on numerous occasions had other people's dogs, both on but mostly off-lead, approach him barking, snarling & indeed nipping him...these owners smile, thinking this is hilarious & often reference "small dog syndrome" referencing that their dog wants to "take on" the big dog in a show of machoism. I have on occasion told these people, "that's not funny, your dog is teaching my dog that he must defend himself first when another dog approaches him, you're undoing all that I have taught him to the contrary".
Dog Owners need to cop themselves on. Not all dogs enjoy or welcome another dog bounding towards them. Not all people enjoy or welcome a dog bounding towards them...cop on, keep your dog under control. And to anyone that claims they have their dog under control...unless your dog stops instantly & returns to your side the very first time you call out to them - then your dog does not have good recall & your dog is NOT under your control!!!!!
And Section 21 deals with liability of the owner when their dog attacks a person, regardless of where the attack takes place.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/21/enacted/en/html#sec21
When a dog attacks a person, the law allows for the dog to be seized, euthanased, and it allows for the owner to be liable for all damages caused by their dog, and it allows for the owner to be fined and potentially imprisoned for transgressions under a number of sections of both the Act and the bye-law.
My point is that it's not correct to say that there's no offence under which owners can be prosecuted when their dog attacks a person. You quoted a bye-law to make your point, but made no reference to the primary legislation which covers dog control across all breeds/types/mixes.
Not having a go! Just clarifying that there's more to dog control legislation than just the bye-law you quoted.
Edited to add: my apologies... it was indeed the primary Act you quoted. I misread it. 🥴
My points still stand nonetheless. I've been in court many times and seen owners being prosecuted quite severely for dog attacks on people and livestock.
German Shepherds are on of the "Dangerous" breeds in legislation.
Marking certain breeds as dangerous isn't going to do much in these cases. I have a neighbour with two large Pit Bulls that are an accident waiting to happen. Would have been fine dogs if they had been reared by someone who wasn't a clueless scumbag.
@[Deleted User]
For some reason I can't quote your post..
By that reasoning alone, the argument could be made that a child or someone smaller than you could not fight off a german sheperd, so if one attacks, should they all be destroyed too?
I just used GS and collies as examples of the top of my head. I've owned a spaniel with a diagnosed case of rage syndrome (and a nasty bite) that I had to have pts, so I am not against putting dogs to sleep where they have shown aggression.
But destroying a whole breed, because of a few, is not a solution, in my opinion. You're entitled to disagree.
So, I'm not going to waste yours or my time getting into any further debate about this, because it never reaches any kind of agreement.
I thought as much unfortunately but didn’t want to say similar as I wasn’t sure. Allowing such dogs to wander freely, you may as well be walking down the street with a cocked loaded gun swinging it back and forth, such is the unpredictability of what could happen and the potential deadly outcome.
We’re always going to have this challenge with such dogs until proper penalties and long prison sentences are introduced for owners who don’t obey the law- and also I don’t care for the “it’s not the dog it’s the owner” argument either- there are some dog breeds out there that just shouldn’t be allowed be owned unless some sort of owner certification is in place- when they attack the outcome is often deadly as we’ve seen in the UK over the last 2 years or so. The statistics around number of attacks be they significant or small don’t matter a damn to a mawled child’s mother and father.
We know that when such dogs attack, the outcomes are either life changing or deadly- why even consider something like a pit bull as a pet- we don’t need that level of risk in our communities. And while some say they’re very loyal, many of the attacks were against their owners or family so that argument is just bull.
All it says about a dog attacking a person is:
(5) Where a dog is proved to have caused damage in an attack on any person, or to have injured livestock, it may be dealt with under this section as a dangerous dog which has not been kept under proper control.
Which explicit says that a dog attacking a person should be treated as a dog which has not been kept under proper control (which is section 9, with the penalty being defined in section 27). There's no specific offence or penalty for a dog attacking a person - it's all just about having the dog under control, which only applies to public spaces, and the penalty is a measly up to £500 and up to a month in jail.
And I didn't quote any by-laws, I quoted the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, section 27
My quote: "a fine not exceeding £500, or, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment."
The 1986 Act:
I'm a dog lover & i know some of the "dangerous dogs " can be very placid & fantastic family pets but & its a massive but why would you risk it ?
Is it worth risk ? why would you risk the safety if your children just to have a dog that you think looks nice, make very little sense to me, I don't want the breed to be punished because they are what they are but i don't understand why you'd want to own one,
Maybe I'm a hypocrite because iv had German Sheppard's but i don't see them at all in the same bracket as Pitbull's & they are kept on large patch of land not stuck in a house, they need space & to be exercised & kept busy, Maybe others view them like Pitbull's so i don't know ,
Also never leave any dog what so ever with a very small baby that just poor parenting skills
Not quite correct there about tgere being no facility to prosecute owners for attacks on people.
That's the Control of Dogs regs 1998 you're quoting there, the bye-law which deals with the so-called "restricted breeds".
The primary act, the Control of Dogs Act of 1986 does, in fact, deal with attacks on people under Section 22, and it is under this part of the Act that owners are prosecuted if their dog attacks a person, or indeed livestock. It also gives the Court the power to order that the dog is seized and euthanased.
It should be noted that this Section of the Act applies to any dog of any breed.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/22/enacted/en/html#sec22
Yes and no. You really must consider damage potential per bite and a defense against them
They are dogs bred to do maximum damage and able to take massive impact damage, and therein lies the issue. Not only are they capable of immediate catastrophic damage, they can soak up everything you throw at them in defense.
What "smaller" dogs do can be fought against. You stand no chance against these breeds.
Hell I love Rotties, think that they are beautiful and fantastic with kids, but I know that if they ever snap at an annoying kid thye will do massive damge.
You mention a German Shepard; I (187cm and 110kg) can, and have been able to, fight off a GS. I would stand no chance against a Pit at all.
"he loves kids" they smile at you - while dog is attempting to savage your kids.
and of course you'll find the usual morons - it's the upbringing not the breed.
fcuk off , they're a vicious breed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9429a6e87ca90295fb14e1083556c0c3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)
