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
Well, let's make a start and focus on owners.. finally!
It's really funny how some people think, banning few breeds will sort the problem.
Nobody ever said that banning a few breeds will sort the problem, but it is the first place to start.
Definitely won't agree on that. Populist solution, which solves nothing.
And even, if that wild fantasy would go through, who will enforce it. There are rules for all dog owners in place already and about zero enforcement.
Ban the pitbulls first, then up the enforcement under existing legislation, regulate the breeders, then address other issues through new legislation. The banning of the pitbulls can happen quickly, it is a reasonable measure, and the rest can follow.
I don't own a dog.
Again banning WON'T work, they tried that in the UK from 1991 and had mandatory neutering/micro chipping and muzzle laws etc and theres now more APBT's than ever in the UK, so much for banning, just like drugs making them illegal only drives prices up and people will still have them. Considering the last two fatal attacks by dogs in Ireland were in 2020 and 2021 as i've mentioned on this thread already were not from APBT's but from 2 Rottweilers and a Husky/Terrier mix and neither childs guardians faced legal repercussions for the deaths as they should have just like everyone is say here the owner of the dog that attacked A.Mizan should too.
Not to mention that there are actually peer reviewed scientific research to say breed specific legislation simply doesn't work.
According to the results in this study, no effect of the legislation can be seen on the total number of dog bites, therefore supporting previous studies in other countries that have also shown a lack of evidence for breed-specific legislation. Importantly, compared to other studies, this study can show a lack of evidence using more robust methods, therefore further highlighting that future legislation in this area should be prioritized on non-breed-specific legislation in order to reduce the number and risk of dog bites."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306151/
Not wearing muzzles should be a findable offence, with an appearance in crimal court if damage is done. Any dog. Not enforceable though.
Total number of dog bites isn't necessarily the issue, damage done by dog bites is the big issue, and certain breeds do more damage, we all know that, but some are blind to it.
From the same study.
"Hence, the available evidence does not suggest that the law has had an impact on injuries due to dog bites in Odense, Denmark."
And what was the law ? what breed is banned?
We are not Odense, we are not Denmark.
All that information is outlined in the link I posted.
Do we only accept science from the country we live in?
Don't have time to read a university article. Are pitbulls banned in Odense?
My friend had a lovely dog before, a Rottweiler, nice friendly dog but extremely strong and unlike an average dog he had teeth more suited to a shark and jaws like a vice grip, as much as a nice dog he was he was far too dangerous to have around the place. Most dogs are playful and play bite scrap etc with their owners but this dog would leave your arms shredded if you played with him.
I see the ignorant and thick comments on here about drug dealer types owning these dangerous dogs but in my experience lots of professional types have these dogs too and during the summer I was out on my nightly weed walk vaping away and nicely chilled out walking through a dark park around half 11 and two large Rothies came over to me sniffing and looking for attention, I almost froze, one bite from one of them and with the medicines I'm on I'd bleed to death and there was nothing close to me to jump up on and then the little skinny wimpy owner appeared and he was no drug dealer/ scumbag type, he sheepishly acknowledged me and walked on. The irresponsible fool had left them off the lead and I knew by his reaction he knew he should have had them under control.
We can't, because we can't even put the numbers on dog attacks together, with a breakdowns by breeds etc.
But we have ban this and that breed brigade for sure.
It's not too hard to find.
"In this study, we focus on the case of a breed-specific legislation introduced on June 1st 2010 in Denmark (Hundeloven, §1a and §1b), banning the breeding, import and new ownership of thirteen breeds, specifically identified as dangerous. For two of these breeds (Pitbull terrier and Tosa Inu), all existing dogs were even ordered to be euthanized. For the remaining eleven (American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasiliero, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Ovtcharka, Caucasian Ovtcharka, Tornjak and Sarplaninac), an intermittent law was imposed on existing dogs meaning that these were forced to wear a muzzle and be on a leash in public places at all times."
You do't have to go far at all to see them banned. See below
How do you think that this can happen quicker than the enforcement of existing legislation? Does the banning of these dogs include the destruction of all the existing bully breeds out there? And how would they be quickly identified and euthenised? How would the backyard breeding of these be stopped quickly? We can't seem to control the rampant puppy farms existing here, so how would you go about banning the breeding, importing and sale of these quicker than we could actually start enforcing the existing laws? What exact breeds are included? Could you save your existing dog with a blood test proving no connection to these breeds? Is there a percentage within blood thats allowed. I'm really confused to how this would be a quick measure?
I dont have a bull breed, nor would I want one. I dont particularly like them tbh and it wouldnt bother me too much it non existed (i feel the same about some non dangerous breeds and other animals too, so on the whole very irrelevent). But thinking practically, banning a breed/multiple breeds is 100% not a quick easy measure - unless you mean the actually passing of the law banning them with no enforecement or follow up.
All answered by a previous poster.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/banned-breeds-dogs-northern-ireland
We have been told that the overwhelming evidence from the US of pitbulls being responsible for most problems with dogs is not applicable here, yet suddenly an obscure study from a small part of Denmark has more relevance?
What's obscure about the study?
The American Veterinary Medical Association don’t even agreed with breed specific legislation.
I dont understand why the enforcement of this would be any different to the enforcement of the current laws? Why would this be quicker and easier than just enforcing the current laws as they stand? If the dog in question had been muzzled and on a short strong leash then the attack would not have happened.
People seem to think that laws always need enforcement, they don't, they need compliance. If everyone complies with the law, then we don't need enforcement.
If the current laws are not being complied with (and that is clearly evident in the case of pitbulls), then the laws often need changing. Pitbull owners are not complying with the law, so the next step is the banning of pitbulls.
https://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2011/07/denmark-breed-ban-is-failing-and-why-the-solution-is-not-more-banning.html
This is from over 10 years ago, showing yet again banning doesn't work, and bites/attacks increased after the ban.
APBT's are banned in the UK, has that stopped all the fatal attacks, NO it hasn't stopped them.
"they acknowledge the data is more of a collection of facts than truly statistical"
They don't control for level of dog ownership and they don't control for increased statistical reporting because of the ban. That's before I get into the credibility of the blog.
Less pitbulls, less maiming, less danger.
Compliance goes by hand with enforcement. What law doesn't need enforcement?
This logis is just hard to follow, really.
Actually this pretty much sums up, with sources to studies, different approaches in different countries etc., why banning or BSL is ineffective. It is a bit of reading alright, but worth it. Better than running around and panic.
assets.gov.ie
https://assets.gov.ie › ...PDF
Introduction Pit of the Facts Breed Specific Legislation Problematic ...
From the document "We do not exist to defend any breed in particular, but to defend all responsible dog owning families."
The bias is predictable.
"Even PETA, the largest animal-rights organization in the world, supports breed-specific sterilization for pit bulls. “Pit bulls are a breed-specific problem, so it seems reasonable to target them,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA’s senior vice president of cruelty investigations. “The public is misled to believe that pit bulls are like any other dog. And they just aren’t.”"
"Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they’re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982"
Sorry, but I am with PETA and Time Magazine, and am going to ignore bias from pitbull-loving lobby groups.
