Dangerous Dogs Owners

With that way of thinking, if you know what breeds are walking in Ireland at this very moment, you would probably shít your underwear..

But anyway, any thoughts on your side what dogs are dangerous ?

We have a restricted breed list. Fair few, if not all on this list are dangerous. Proper dangerous. 

People don’t just “make up” a list. It’s a list based off analysis and education and reasoning and all that.

dogs that are strong, powerful, and kind of hyper-full energy.

Danger is where a dog if it turns or attacks can cause serious damage very quickly, and to try prevent this takes real effort.

In other words big strong dogs.

You mentioned two year olds can be hurt/killed by small dogs. Of course they can. But it’s about comparisons. A small dog attacks your two year old with you present…it’s very likely you can stop the attack very quickly. Now, a large powerful dog attacks your two year old, and within seconds there’s the chance of death, and your efforts to prevent this are far more difficult.

I missed no point. You’re constantly creating pointless scenarios is all. We have a restricted beeed. We also have an XL ban. I believe in both. And I also have my opinion on what I would determine a dangerous dog. Your smart-arse replies don’t do much.

I missed no point.

I think you deliberately did.

Pointless scenarios? You've definitely missed the point..

Your smart-arse replies don’t do much.

I don't know about that. Looking at your posts, it did the job.

I dunno, I'll never understand why Rhodesian Ridgebacks are on the Restricted Breeds list.

I had a little Google to see their bite stats & could only find:

"The third and final reference to it was in a study which found that a Rhodesian Ridgeback had been involved in one fatality in the 20-year period between 1979 and 1998 in the US – far fewer than non-restricted breeds like the collie, Labrador retriever, and Saint Bernard"

There was a one fatality recorded in 20 years period as you say. I've posted it somewhere at the start of this thread too. Yet it is breed on the Restricted breeds list. Haven't seen any explanation of what reason would be for that by anyone on this thread. Not even by the usual dogs are weapons, sharks, machine guns posts.

Not that it would be well known breed in Ireland, when people meet my two girls (not purebreds), they sometimes ask me what have I done to their hair on their backs... Yet again, it's breed on restricted breeds list. It doesn't bother me much, because I have no problem to follow the rules (girls either), but there are tons of other owners of restricted unrestricted (nonsense to split dogs like that imo), who ignore about everything.

I think one of the biggest problems, bar from a heap of other things surrounding dogs, is that some people are in best cases oblivious and in worse cases ignorant, completely ignorant for the needs of their dog, or exploiting and misusing them.

Stole this quote from some article

The temperaments of dogs are fundamentally and universally acknowledged to be influenced by age, sex, early socialisation, early nutrition, training, health and genetics, while [breed-specific legislation] only takes one of these factors into account.

Any good source of info around dogs, puts early socialisation, training, nutrition, health and genetics as a top thing, and all of that is being ignored by big part of dog owners.

There are not many Rhodesian Ridgebacks around so deaths and injuries caused by them are obviously going to be very rare.

Comparing to Labradors is ridiculous considering Labradors are probably the most common breed in America and UK and Ireland aswell.

It would be like saying an Aston Martin is a much safer car than a Volkswagen because Aston Martin's are involved in so few crashes.

You missed my point.

I was replying to a poster who said that the Restricted Breed List is based off analysis & education, if that were the case why the heck would you have a breed, out of all the breeds that exists on a list of supposed 'dangerous breeds' when there has only been one record in 20 years pertaining to this breed.

Hardly the mark of a well thought out list.

Would common sense not dictate that the more incidents of attacks a breed is involved in the more it would merit being on a Restricted Breeds list?

The fact that this breed is not a commonly owned breed in Ireland is even more head scratching as to why it ended up on our list.

Ah come on, 1 attack in 20 years, not even in Ireland was enough to land that breed on the Irish Restricted Breeds list are you having a laugh. Were there even any Rhodesian Ridgebacks in Ireland 30 years when this came into force, if there was it was few & far between.

Stevie Wonder can see there was no analysis & certainly no education put into compiling the dogs on the Restricted list.

Pretty sure nobody is walking around with a tiger on a lead in Ireland so moot point.

If there are so few of this breed why include it on a list, its rarity alone would protect people without any restrictions. Do we just include all rare but potentially dangers dogs on this list now for no reason?

It doesn't matter how you slice it the Restricted Breeds list is flawed, it just highlights how far removed the law makers are when it comes to dogs.

its rarity alone would protect people without any restrictions. 

What if you removed the restrictions and every toerag who's just abandoned his XL bully decides to get one?

If there are none of them here, then maybe the restrictions are doing the job?

It's like saying, why do we vaccinate children against polio, sure no one ever gets that anymore?

Don't be fooled, those abandoning their XL Bullies WILL get another breed, what that breed will be remains to be seen.

There are few Rhodesian Ridgebacks in Ireland purely because most Irish people have never heard of them, it has nothing to do with the restrictions. If restrictions put people off certain breeds we wouldn't have so many German Shepherds, Staffys or Rottweilers in Ireland.

The argument you've made above is incredibly disingenuous and stupid.

Of course it is not. Everybody knows that small dog can kill a child, adults are not always around. Then your usual (not only yours have to say, this nonsense is being peddled since the start of this thread)argument pushed around about swift kicks etc., sounds like incredibly stupid to me. But again to use your car analogy, if you put an I*** in charge, troubles comes. Maybe that's why labs having high bite incidents, do you blame breed for it, or there's something else wrong?

I understand that some breeds have potential to do significant damage, but there's way too many of them. It's impossible to ban them all. Smart countries are turning away from BSL approach for a long time, it's way too expensive, hard to enforce, and most importantly, it doesn't sort numbers of dog attacks. Well and not so smart countries keep going by the "restricted", "ban"way, and as this thread shows, a lot of people buy it.