The Restricted Breeds list?

There's plenty of laws that don't make any sense in this county including the restricted breeds list. We've had a German Shepherd and a Wheaten Terrier and it was the Terrier that needed to be muzzled and controlled (as do most Terriers!)

Id love to know too, im not going to the BarkinthePark tomorrow because of it..:(

Here ya go. Basically, it was a knee-jerk reaction to some highly publicised dog attacks in the UK in the early 1990s. Who made the list or not really came down to the Minister's own prejudices, and lobbying from interested parties, such as breed groups. Bulldogs escaped the list because of representations made by a number of bulldog owners and organisations. Boxers also escaped the list.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1283038433&view=oho-view&docrank=65&numhitsfound=67&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&query1=19910101&query5=control%20of%20dogs&docid=270837&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&starthit=50&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1


http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1283038033&view=oho-view&docrank=21&numhitsfound=160&query=restricted%20%20breeds&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&docid=277749&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Dail Debate, May 1992 - here is Minister Smith's thinking:

"Mr. Smith: I take the point Deputy McCartan makes with regard to built-up areas, where there is much confinement in terms of freedom or allowing dogs enjoy themselves in the normal way. It is a consideration that should be borne in mind by people in such areas in terms of their acquisition of dogs as pets. Very often such circumstances can be very frustrating not alone for their owners but also for the dogs themselves if there is not a reasonable degree of freedom. It is part of the nature of a dog and something we must endeavour to bear in mind. I would be very reluctant to go beyond a suggestion of that kind. As I understand it, no more than in human life, size and/or ambition do not necessarily relate one to the other. Certainly in my hurling or football days I never had any less fear of a six footer or somebody of 6'5“ than somebody who may have been a foot smaller who could impact in a more severe manner. If one carries that logic through in terms of dogs, a St. Bernard, say, would be regarded as a heavyweight but, in terms of viciousness, not much of a threat whereas a bull terrier would be much lighter but pose a much greater threat in terms of viciousness. As the House will know, in terms of reported accidents to children, facial injuries and so on, again size is not anything like the factor people might think. To that extent the Deputy will appreciate that the question of viciousness and dangerous dogs is a difficult one. It would be extremely difficult if I were obliged, in drawing up regulations, to take account of everything in regard to weight, size and so on. I happen to like dogs very much myself...

At the beginning I said I should like to cultivate a greater interest in smaller dogs more easily managed and maintained particularly in very built-up areas where there would not be the same degree of freedom for the larger type of breed. But to go beyond that in legislative terms I contend would be unacceptable and extremely difficult to determine in any fair or reasonable manner. I hope Deputy McCartan will appreciate that I have indicated on a number of occasions, when it comes to defining the regulations, I intend releasing from the muzzling regulations quite a number of categories but it will still be necessary to keep dogs on leads in public places. Therefore, there will be a flexible, measured way of dealing with this. After reconsideration I think Deputy McCartan will realise that, in legislative terms, to oblige me to take account of all the points he has made would be unnecessarily difficult and indeed would interfere with some of the people for whom he, like me, is endeavouring to cater.


The Bill as it stands will give me a fair degree of freedom in dealing with the various classes of dogs. I will take into account the points which have been made by the Deputy. I ask him not to make my tasks impossible by proposing that the [25] different classes of dogs would be determined on the basis of weight. There is a big difference between a large dog who poses no threat to the public and a small dog who can be very vicious. The Deputy's amendment would make it almost impossible to determine the licence fee in any fair and reasonable way."

most of the bulls were originaly bred for fighting and protecting but many of the bull breds have evolved into friendly dogs so i think this list should be changed or updated the staff bull is a perfect example ofthis evolution

Shane Fitz wrote: »

changed or updated? are you kidding me?
it should be abolished altogether, and replaced with legislation which promotes responsible dog ownership, regardless of breed.
Your example of the Staff is a great example of how ridiculous the list is....

i agree all dogs should be treated the same.but this could mean that all our dogs could end up on a 6 ft leash and muzzle.they would never run the risk of taking a bull off the list .it would only take one incedent and there would be war.alot of dog owners are not even capable of looking after an esb bill let alone let alone a dog so these legislations would fall on deaf ears. if tou want to own any dog you should have to go tru a screening process

ISDW wrote: »

I don't think theres any point in trying to figure out how the list came to be, there is no real logic behind it, if it was logical there wouldn't be a list, because a dog is a product of its breeding and rearing, not its breed.

Look at it totally logically - it was brought in to deal with potential dog attacks against people. The bull breeds were bred to fight other animals, not people. They were bred to NOT bite their handlers, so in actual fact are logically the least likely to attack people. But, logic doesn't come into it, and you will drive yourself mad trying to figure out the warped logic in this law.

the bull breeds were bred to fight other animals and humans as they were bred to protect there master and property.You say a dog is a product of there breeding and rearing not its breed but THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ITS BREED IS PUT INTO A CATAGORY OF WHAT IT WAS BRED FOR HENSE ITS BREEDING . but that was in the 1920s and most of the bulls heve evolved into companions rather that what they were bred for decades ago

Sigh.. Bull Breeds were never bred to fight humans. The ancestors of Mastifs and Wolfhounds etc were (amongst other things) bred and trained as war dogs. Bulldogs were initially the only type of dogs bred and used in baiting "sports", mostly bears, for amusement. Then some bright spark had the idea to cross Terriers with Bulldogs to created a more agile and tenacious type of dog for dogfights and baiting. These were initially called Bull and Terrier and became the ancestors of the Pit Bull Terrier amongst other breeds.

Selectively bred to be human FRIENDLY as the dogmen had to be able to handle the dogs in the pit. Get your facts straight before you come on here and spout such non-sense.

Read again what I wrote: baiting. Pit fights are a relatively *new* development of a sick human mind. Pits way back then were used solely for Terriers versus rats to prevent the rats from escaping.

ALOT of so called utility breeds which are now the "bees knees" of guard dogs as perceived by the public were initially bred for completely different purposes. Rottweilers, GSD's etc were not bred for guarding purposes against humans.

As a matter of fact most Bull Breeds are pretty useless as guard dogs .

btw edgar if u read my eairler post u will see i talked about evolution and that this list should be changed

i meant as part of the terrier bred.

ye but thats were the topic lead too

pokertalk wrote: »

thats basically what i said. that these dogs are on the list because of there past but have evolved

You said that bull breeds were originally bred to fight humans which is nonsense. As EGAR and other posters have said, the dogs are on the list as a result of knee-jerk political reactions to misinformed media hysteria.

Your assertation that bull breeds were bred to fight humans is yet another example of the misinformation going around regarding these breeds.