Irish Labour Party calls for Dog Holocaust

EGAR

Albeit a nice thought, it doesn't work as other countries with those policies show. All it takes in ONE family member/friend who has no criminal record and obtaining a dog is no longer a problem.:(

John_C

The Politican's Blog, link posted above wrote:

I welcome the fact that my remarks have sparked a full-scale debate and plan to raise the matter in the Dáil where it can be debated further and all views taken into consideration before the legislation is amended.

On one hand they're calling for a full scale debate and on the other they're accusing EGAR of libel for posting on this site disagreeing with them.

Mr Burns

John_C wrote:

On one hand they're calling for a full scale debate and on the other they're accusing EGAR of libel for posting on this site disagreeing with them.

There is no need to worry as the labour party are unelectable and will be no where near governing this country for the foreseeable future.

peasant

Mr Burns wrote:

There is no need to worry as the labour party are unelectable and will be no where near governing this country for the foreseeable future.

There is every need to worry.
Bad but nonetheless populistic ideas like this one have a habit of propagating themselves throughout the political parties, no matter which one they originated with.

Easy and cheap bandwagon to jump on, this one ...after all, who could possibly object to "something being done" to prevent an innocent Irish child from being killed (no hang on ..."savaged" is the word) by a dog?

2funki4wheelz

An easy and cheap bandwagon indeed, perhaps they underestimate the amount of dog owners with strong feelings against this sort of panacea. I do not like your policy = I will not be voting for you.

I'm firmly in the 'blame the owner' camp. If this is the politicians logic, in a line: ban something that has the potential to kill
then bye bye cars, clear the roads, stop the carnage.

Oh no wait, don't these generate heaps of revenue for the govt?? :rolleyes:

So instead we have speeding restrictions and tests and fines and penalty points and whatever efforts, however successful they may be - not just a blanket ban.
Same with the dog issues, be stricter on licenses, muzzling/control, background checks, puppy farms (and wherever else 'macho' men by their accessories with teeth)

Reverend Paul

EGAR wrote:

Albeit a nice thought, it doesn't work as other countries with those policies show. All it takes in ONE family member/friend who has no criminal record and obtaining a dog is no longer a problem.:(

I see where you're coming from. However, if the registered owner was responsible for the dog's behaviour (with penalties ranging from a stiff fine to a prison sentence) then I don't think that there would be many people wishing to obtain a dog for their wannabe hardman relatives.

peasant

Reverend Paul wrote:

However, if the registered owner was responsible for the dog's behaviour (with penalties ranging from a stiff fine to a prison sentence) then ...

...then there wouldn't be a (perceived) need to ban any breed of dog in the first place

fits

In fairness to Mary Upton, I doubt she is jumping on the bandwagon for votes. I am not a supporter of the labour party, but Dr Upton lectured and gave me practicals in college and did not strike me in any way as a 'bandwagon' sort of person. I am glad there is some sort of debate on this issue. Most politicians ignore animals and their welfare in this country.
Perhaps people like Sarah EGAR, and others such as the ANVIL movement who are well-informed as to what is needed for animal welfare and control in this country, should work with politicians such as Dr Upton. She will listen to any reasonable and logical argument, as she is a reasonable person.

nando

I would definitely call releasing a press release immediately after such an incident as jumping on the bandwagon. I respect the fact the this woman is a scientist but she has certainly not approached this issue with the unbiased, logical mind that is required in science, but rather with the vote-seeking mind-set of a politician.

Britian had already banned the breed and it did not stop this incident, so why does she think a similar ban will have any positive impact here? The CDC in America has all but given up compiling dog bite statistics because breed information is usually false. There are plenty of scientific articles in the Canadian vet journal showing that dog bites have continued to increase in those regions of Canada that have implemented such a ban, and that bite incidents for non-banned breeds has risen dramatically. To me this shows that the breed is not the problem but the ownership and management of the dog.

If Mary Upton truly wanted to invite an even, fair, unbiased debate then she should not have began by stating that she thinks "we should be looking to impose an outright ban on certain breeds".

fits

Its up to people like us, the electorate to contribute to the debate isnt it? To let the politicians know what we think would be the most effective solution. One thing is certain, things just cannot go on as they are. I get absolutely disheartened with the plight of dogs in this country. There are something like 600 dogs for sale in every issue of buy and sell, bred irresponsibly, sold irresponsibly and kept irresponsibly. Goodness knows how many pups are drowned or killed every week, and how many are put to sleep in the pounds. I picked up a stray whippet last Friday, and she was completely emaciated, probably dumped by some focker who wasnt bothered feeding her.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of companion animal welfare legislation in this country, and there needs to be some kind of education programme in the schools as well as subsidised neutering. This country has an absolutely prehistoric attitude to its animals and it just sickens me!
As for Dick Roche, what a joke he is, who on earth votes for such an incapable man? We need to work with people like Mary Upton on this, rather than attacking her all out.

Our man in Havana

The problem is there is no companion animal welfare!

If the likes of Mary Upton & the others who are proposing a ban for PRIVATE homes to own any of the so called dangerous dogs if they are willing to sit down & learn before saying a mandatory ban is called for them fine we will work with the politicians! They jumped on the bandwagon with talks of outright bans - whilst I am in favour of some legislation I am not going to let at least 2 of my beloved pets be put to sleep cause someone says I HAVE to! If my dogs bit & attacked I would be the first one to take them to be put to sleep - I will not let my lovely soft gentle boys be destroyed cause of a knee jerk reaction to an incident in another country!

FranknFurter

Im not sure this should'nt be in the Politics forum.
Aside from anything else, it is a valid political issue.......

B

fits

To clarify, I dont agree that banning so called 'aggressive breeds' is the answer at all. That said, I have only become aware of the dog welfare scandal in this country over the last 18 months since I rescued my first. It is since then that I have educated myself about training, behaviour, and what is and isnt acceptable. Before that I subscribed to the ridiculous idea that neutering 'ruins' a dog because thats what everyone in this country believes, had no idea about vaccinations etc. Most people dont have a clue... The labour party were wrong to suggest a complete ban and all that that entails, its up to us to educate them as to the best course of action.

Our man in Havana

I would never read the politics forum B - I just feel strongly that us animal lovers need to stop this proposed ban!!

Fits I agree animal welfare in this country is a joke! But I know an outright ban is not the way to go!

Reverend Paul

peasant wrote:

...then there wouldn't be a (perceived) need to ban any breed of dog in the first place

Of course there's no need to ban any breed. But if obtaining a dog by deception was discouraged(in the way described), it would go a long way to calming the hysteria regarding these dogs.

Speaking of which, a public information campaign wouldn't go astray either. Most people tend to accept that Rottweilers/Pit bulls etc. are naturally aggressive towards humans. This false assumption is only too readily encouraged by a lazy, sensationalistic media. If people knew of these breeds' actual characteristics, then we'd all be much better off.

peasant

Reverend Paul wrote:

Speaking of which, a public information campaign wouldn't go astray either. Most people tend to accept that Rottweilers/Pit bulls etc. are naturally aggressive towards humans. This false assumption is only too readily encouraged by a lazy, sensationalistic media. If people knew of these breeds' actual characteristics, then we'd all be much better off.

Yes ...in a perfect world that would work.

Unfortunately I can't quite see the "Irish Sun" or other papers of that ilk running a story entitled "Your friend the Rottweiler".

Hysteria sells, a friendly and calm looking Rottie on the front page on the other hand ...:(

EGAR

Perhaps people like Sarah EGAR, and others such as the ANVIL movement who are well-informed as to what is needed for animal welfare and control in this country, should work with politicians such as Dr Upton. She will listen to any reasonable and logical argument, as she is a reasonable person.

My offers to Mr. Costelloe and Miss Upton to that extent have been ignored. All my emails have been ignored UNTIL I gave the interview none of them have replied to ANY of my emails.

Sarah

Our man in Havana

Have you tried contacting Pat Rabbitte?

EGAR

No, just Costelloe and Upton.

FranknFurter

Maybe Brian Crowley? -> http://www.emilydogs.ie/text/launch.htm

*shrug

B

EGAR

I have added this tonight to my website:

http://www.egar.org/bsl.htm

To be silent is betrayal.

BeauZak

Excellent info in that link. The middle part is from the www.anvilireland.ie site and explains things clearly to the public. Maybe it would be a good idea to credit ANVIL though. I know you probably have permission to post all of the ANVIL info on your website since all of their info is strictly controlled but I think it would be good to credit the source

EGAR

The middle part is Uptons press release.

rogue-entity

Personally I would rather see all small dogs wiped out rather then the big dogs. Terriers and Shi-Tzu's can be right snappy bastids, though, if one tries to attack you it is a lot easier to keep it away from you with your foot then you could with a rottie.

Not all the dogs on that list deserve to be banned out right, but I would agree with banning the American Pit Bull, they should not exist in the first place. Dogs like dobermanns, rotties, akita's and Alsations however all make great family companions and protectors, yes they can be "agressive" but only so far as being protective of their owners. What I do feel is that the government should do is be more proactive about neutering dogs and cats. Owners have no excuse for not doing this, especially with male animals.

EGAR

Oh well another ignorant soul

BeauZak

The middle part is Uptons press release.

Mary Upton may of taken that from Anvil site originally. She does quote/credit the anvil site though in any emails etc that she sends.

Link is here: http://www.anvilireland.ie/fulcrum.html?ep=66 for everyones info.