Dublin City Council bans dangerous dog breeds

Texas

From this mornings Irish Times......

Dublin City Council bans 'dangerous dog breeds'

Eleven breeds of dog, including Rottweilers, Bull Terriers and German Shepherds have been banned from all Dublin City Council properties, including houses, flats and estates, with immediate effect.

The council has said it will give tenants an opportunity to rehouse the animals but if alternative suitable accommodation cannot be found for them they will be destroyed.

The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds" due to the increasing numbers of complaints from tenants and because of the legal implications associated with an attack taking place on one of its properties. The ban initially applies to council housing and all public areas within council estates.

However, the council plans to amend its bylaws to include public parks in the ban. This would mean that anyone owning a dangerous dog could not walk it in a public park, even if they lived in private housing.

The council has also written to the Minister for the Environment asking him to ban all breeds of fighting dogs nationally. The 11 breeds are not banned for general ownership in Ireland but must be muzzled, kept on a special leash and be under the control of a person over 16 years old.

The breeds are: English Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Japanese Akita, Bull Mastiff, Japanese Tosa and Bandog. Cross-breeds of these dogs or crosses of these dogs with any other breed are also banned.

Executive manager of the council's housing department Michael O'Neill said tenants would be asked to remove any banned dogs but if they failed to comply the council would take them away. "Our information on these dogs is that that they can be very aggressive and while they might be family pets, that has to come secondary and would be no defence to us if a child or other vulnerable person was attacked on our property."

Labour councillor Kevin Humphreys said he understood council tenants may feel discriminated against, but he hoped that this was just the first step to banning these breeds nationally.

peasant

...while they might be family pets, that has to come secondary and would be no defence to us if a child ...was attacked ...

I'm f*cking sick and tired of the "won't somebody pleeeze think of the children" argument. That's emotional blackmail and about the worst possible justification for what they're about to implement.

Banning all "dangerous dogs" and killing those that are not whisked away to the country somewhere is:

a) Bloody shortsighted animal racism. It is the owner and the training that make a dog "dangerous" not it's breed. This is akin to saying that all *enter ethnicity of choice* foreigners are thieves and drug dealers and should be either deported or executed

b) Theft. You cannot come and take my dog away that has done nothing wrong except for having parentage that you don't like.

c) Ethnical cleansing I know you can't really call it that when it comes to animals ...but that's what it equates to. Gas chambers (or injections) for those of the wrong breed or "race". Does that ring a bell with anyone?


The authorities are incapable of keeping anti-social dog owners in check (same as any other anti-social elements) so they're opting for the cheap and easy way out and kill innocent animals instead.

Cheap, populistic propaganda, thought up by mindless bullies.
Avoiding the real issues and blaming animals instead.

Where are we? In the middle ages ??

palaver

Now now any more of this & I will get my BAN hammer out! STAY ON TOPIC! Make jokes in the appropriate forum please!

Annika30

They need to start banning ownership not dog breeds.

micdug

peasant wrote:

I'm f*cking sick and tired of the "won't somebody pleeeze think of the children" argument. That's emotional blackmail and about the worst possible justification for what they're about to implement.

Banning all "dangerous dogs" and killing those that are not whisked away to the country somewhere is:

a) Bloody shortsighted animal racism. It is the owner and the training that make a dog "dangerous" not it's breed. This is akin to saying that all *enter ethnicity of choice* foreigners are thieves and drug dealers and should be either deported or executed

b) Theft. You cannot come and take my dog away that has done nothing wrong except for having parentage that you don't like.

c) Ethnical cleansing I know you can't really call it that when it comes to animals ...but that's what it equates to. Gas chambers (or injections) for those of the wrong breed or "race". Does that ring a bell with anyone?


The authorities are incapable of keeping anti-social dog owners in check (same as any other anti-social elements) so they're opting for the cheap and easy way out and kill innocent animals instead.

Cheap, populistic propaganda, thought up by mindless bullies.
Avoiding the real issues and blaming animals instead.

Where are we? In the middle ages ??

Sick of what? Just because you don't care about the safety of people around you does not mean others don't either. It's not just children, its other dog owners afraid of seeing their dog ripped apart, posties, and the general public. These dogs are not like other dogs - they were breed for fighting.
Your argument is the same as those idiot Americans who claim that its the person that kills not the Gun. Well they make it a heck of a lot easier (the gun that is), and in 90% of cases where a Gun is kept in a house in the states and it's discharged, the victim is one of the houses inhabitants. Same goes for these dogs who end up attacking Children/relatives even though they were the sweetest thing to their master.
We have a problem with a subset of dog owners (I'm looking at you) who think they look hard with these dogs (Their are PLENTY of other breeds out there you could have picked). Of course the dog would never attack you - thats the pack mentality. It's OTHER people the dog will have a problem with that it views as a threat. As for your rant:

a. No it's not - they are loaded guns - maybe not today, but someday they will go off. All the training in the world won't eliminate their breeding.
b. Yes we can. You live in a society where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the law will always support the many. The anti social person here is you for considering your desires to be superior to the rest of society.
c. :mad: Shame on you. Shame on you. To compare the Holocaust to your minor problem is morally reprehensible.

As an owner of three rescue dogs, who always had a love for Animals, I am delighted to see this sensible rule introduced. It is for the greater good.

copacetic

peasant wrote:

animal racism. ..Theft.. .. Ethnical cleansing

thats some pretty nutty stuff?!

As far as I can tell all these breeds are specifically bred to be dangerous, either as hunting, guarding or fighting dogs. How you can call it 'animal racism' to ban them when these dogs are definitely more dangerous than normal breeds is beyond me. They are more likely to attack and are much more powerful when they do.

Anyone who keeps animals like these in small houses/flats in council estates couldn't be a good owner anyway imo. You can blame bad owners but bad ownership of a normal breed may lead to someone getting bitten, not savaged. By all accounts some of the recent attacks have been by dogs owned and trained by 'good owners' but they still attacked people.

Now I personally wouldn't put a german shepard in there with the rest of them but I can certainly see the point of this.

macshadow

lol Palaver:) i knew the first report was wrong:D

Annika30

copacetic wrote:

thats some pretty nutty stuff?!

As far as I can tell all these breeds are specifically bred to be dangerous, either as hunting, guarding or fighting dogs. How you can call it 'animal racism' to ban them when these dogs are definitely more dangerous than normal breeds is beyond me. They are more likely to attack and are much more powerful when they do.

Anyone who keeps animals like these in small houses/flats in council estates couldn't be a good owner anyway imo. You can blame bad owners but bad ownership of a normal breed may lead to someone getting bitten, not savaged. By all accounts some of the recent attacks have been by dogs owned and trained by 'good owners' but they still attacked people.

Now I personally wouldn't put a german shepard in there with the rest of them but I can certainly see the point of this.

????? Bred to be dangerous. Why bother answering if you don't know anything about dogs?

copacetic

Annika30 wrote:

????? Bred to be dangerous. Why bother answering if you don't know anything about dogs?

So you are saying breeding dogs to be dangerous to intruders and to other dogs doesn't actually make them 'dangerous'. What distinction are you making?

I know plenty about dogs.

bizmark

Annika30 wrote:

They need to start banning ownership not dog breeds.

Indeed but the people(minority and a poor sobbing girl/mother on the news awww) have whined so big daddy goverment must come in and protect us all FOR TEH CHILDREN!

peasant

In reply to both micduc and copacetic (and others who may feel the same)

First off, I don't own a dog thats on the "dangerous dog" list.

Secondly ...yes there are truly dangerous dogs out there. People who want a "dangerous" dog would also "traditionally" go for certain breeds ...but that doesn't make all dogs of that breed automatically dangerous. Also, the implied conclusion that all dogs that are not on the list are "safe" is wrong.

An thirdly ...it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the owner to keep their dog under control, no matter what kind of dog they own. So ban offending owners, but not innocent dogs.

Gauge

This makes me very sad for the people who own these breeds and have trained them well and now have to give them up or see them destroyed.

Somehow I don't think this is going to stop attacks- the people who are turning these dogs aggressive are the ones that need to be punished, not the breeds. Pit bulls and rottweilers can be fine as long as they are trained properly- the only problem is these breeds attract idiots who want a tough dog so they can 'look hard' and end up turning it into an aggressive killing machine.

I've known plenty of people with these type of dogs... I've seen perfectly behaved ones, and I've seen dogs ruined because of the imbeciles that own them. A dog that's trained to be aggressive will attack anything, regardless of it's breed, but these breeds do have a potential to do more harm than others. The problem is, once their pit bull or rottweiler is taken away, there's nothing to stop these people getting a Labrador or a boxer and turning that dog fierce as well- I'd put money on this happening.

All this is going to achieve is people losing their pets- and the idiots responsible for this ban in the first place will end up ruining more dogs. I can see where they're coming from with the ban, but it's the owners that need to be sorted out- ban the irresponsible owners from owning these dogs, not the dog itself

macshadow

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying breeding dogs to be dangerous to intruders and to other dogs doesn't actually make them 'dangerous'. What distinction are you making?

I know plenty about dogs.

It's the bad breeding of those dogs mentioned that makes them dangerous.
You could breed a dog thats more fierce than the dogs on that list but less likely to attack. It's comes down to the dogs nervous system.

peasant

The thing is ...this legislation opens the flood gates.

There probably are quite few anti-social dog owners living in council estates with dogs that aren't under control or even trained to be agressive ...so at first glance this legislation makes sense to all "righteous citizens".
Take those dangerous dogs away from those skangers !!

But that's not what Dublin City Council is doing, is it?

Little old granny, living in a council house, all she has left in life is her old Staffie. Her best friend and family for the last 10 years.

Soon somebody is going to show up on her doorstep, wave a piece of paper under her nose and take her dog away! Because it's on the list!

And if the silent majority of righteous citizens applauds this measure (as I'm sure they will do ...after all who cares about people who live in council estates?) it's only a matter of time until other councils will follow suit ...and then it'll become country-wide law.
Sooner or later a few more breeds will find themselves on the list until no dog or dog owner is safe anymore.

cowzerp

I own a rotweiller and he is the biggest softie you would ever meet-if anybody tried to take him on me then they would have to muzzle me! this is a disgrace and this government has to be stopped, people can own guns if licensed even though they could potentialy kill people and learner drivers can drive cars with the same risks but because a breed has an unfair tag on it they are banned-NO WAY-MY DOG STAYS. i own my house in a council estate-does that mean they cant touch him?

Gauge

What makes a dog dangerous?

Example A: A dog that is trained and raised well and loves it's owers will feel protective towards them- that's a dog's nature. This dog won't attack randomly but if it's family is put under threat, it will react.

Example B: Now lets say an idiot wants a 'guard dog' but has no idea about training/etc, they just want a threatening dog. They chain a dog up all day long, encourage it to be aggressive, etc. This dog is not a protector, it will attack anything, including the postman, children, what have you.

See the difference? This goes for any dog, but like I said, an aggressive pit bull is far more powerful than a chihuahua and also appears far more attractive to someone who wants a mean, threatening dog.

Saruman

I agree that these dogs are not naturally dangerous.. its down to the owner and how they are treated mostly. For instace the Rottweiler. I have yet to come across a bad one, most of them are pushovers who will let themselves be bullied by smaller dogs. Now i have only spent a lot of time around 2 of them but they are great with kids and lovely dogs.

However... the problem here is the skangers who take these dogs and train them to attack and even kill. When this happens you then have a problem. These dogs are capable of seriously hurting an adult and even killing. And a child has no chance.

Now certain breeds are more likely to bite, of those the 2 that spring to mind are a poodle and a cocker spaniel. Neither are seen as dangerous and so skangers tend not to bother with them... thats good.. can you imagine the horror if they started walking around with rabid poodles and set them attacking people? The horror!!

cotton

I'm sorry but this IS animal racism. I was sickened when I read it. It is the owners, NOT the breed.
More people are bitten by labradors than any other dog.
If these breeds are banned then I guarantee you these people wil have these dogs replaced other breeds before you know it. Boxers used to be on the list but were removed, I can guarantee you that there will be an increase in a certain type of people owning them before long.
I have 3 crosses of the above, plus a lab. The lab is the grumpiest of them all. The other 3 (2 dobermans & a shep) certainly were not bred for fighting & regularly get battered or slept on by the cats.
We did live a flat with them as while we were waiting to build this place. They were walked & walked & it did them no harm.
Now they want to try to ban them for being walked in public parks too. That means that anyone with one of these breeds, even if you live in a private mansion, can't even walk them in a public place anymore.
Its a disgrace.

bizmark

Course what will happen is this moronic law will only effect the law abiding people who for the most part try and train their dogs simply to be companions the people who train the dogs for fighting (which is illegal isn't it?) or general aggression will take no notice of these laws so once again the adverage person will suffer while the moron's in government pat themselves on the back as another pessure group is satisfied while the adverage person suffers .....GG yet again.

Our man in Havana

The thing that gets me is all dogs can be dangerous! What happens if this ban happens & all the dogs on the list are destroyed because that's what they are saying MASS destruction of a species so I fully understand the holocaust reference.

So consider this - the council has banned the dogs YAY no more attacked kids - but wait a kiddie attacked by a Labrador! Christ a new "DANGEROUS DOG" Lets ban that one! Oh my God a collie attacked a kid & that kid needed stitches - add those to the list! - Where does it all end? "GENERAL BAN!" "DOGS ARE ILLEGAL!"

Our man in Havana

I should also say I own a rottie - I trust his 100% My westie is a dog I would not let alone with a kid she'd bite!

deaddonkey

this is complete and utter bull****

and whoever that clearly brainless dip**** moron who suggested that all these dogs are bred for fighting, well, i'm inviting you to come back when you have even a slight idea what you're talking about

for the greater good my ass

this is for politicians who want votes from the majoirty who haven't a ****ing clue

my friendly german shepherd is going nowhere

i call on all of you to protest this, this has gone way too ****ing far.

deaddonkey

micdug wrote:

c. :mad: Shame on you. Shame on you. To compare the Holocaust to your minor problem is morally reprehensible.

who peed in your cornflakes?

it's exactly the same thing

i could say, well, a CONVICTED FELON might attack me, so i'm insisting that every CONVICTED FELON be kept indoors, or if they need to go outside to pee, a white person tapes their mouth shut, handcuffs them and keeps them on a chain, well, it seems perfectly sensible to me.

bring it on, DCC. BRING IT ON.


Edited due to possible racial content. Please keep racism off of boards.ie!

Annika30

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying breeding dogs to be dangerous to intruders and to other dogs doesn't actually make them 'dangerous'. What distinction are you making?

I know plenty about dogs.

Okay, for the kids at the very back of the class, allow me to go through it very simply and slowly. Firstly the issue of classifying certain dogs as "Dangerous" has a great deal more to do with political window dressing than it has to do with addressing aggression in dogs. Today's Irish Times listed the eleven dog breeds that appear on this list, but if you do even cursory research you would find that some of the dogs on the list are there purely because of the way they look or because of their misunderstood past, for example the Rhodesian Ridgeback which were bred for tracking Lions and is hound like any other.
The plain as day fact is that ANY dog can become aggressive, either by poor breeding, deliberate training, neglect or ignorance. A breed is not intrinsically aggressive, people however have a veritable talent for it. Maybe you could point to the Pitbull type dogs, which have a poor reputation, but look closely as to why that is? Constant irresponsible breeding specifically to produce aggressive dogs for people who desire exactly that, most commonly as the worst kind of macho status symbol.
The issue of size seems to be the most common denominator on the list, yet there seems to be a persistent blind eye turned to the aggression of small dogs. Do small dogs have rubber teeth? Could a small dog not significantly harm a child?
So you see that clearly you have a very poor understanding of the subject.

micdug

deaddonkey wrote:

who peed in your cornflakes?

it's exactly the same thing

****

bring it on, DCC. BRING IT ON.

No it's not and no you can't. I am shocked by some of the posting here. The general behavior of some of the posters is a definite reflection on their attitude to the rest of society and severe difficulty with moral relativism.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Guys its no good bitching and moaning about it here.

Has anyone made any kind of representation's to their local councillor's?.

I'm not a dog owner, but I'm in the process of looking for a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (or rather getting my wife to agree to us having one). And from everything I've read re. this breed its far from a dangerous dog.

I'll certainly be approaching my local councillor's regarding this ban.

Anyone else?

We can post a list of councillors, their telephone numbers and email address'es here for boards members to approach.

peasant

Mairt

According to the article, DCC has already approached the minister of the environement to make this into a countrywide ban.

I'd say it's the minister we'd have to talk to.

How does one go about that?

arybvtcw0eolkf

peasant wrote:

Mairt

According to the article, DCC has already approached the minister of the environement to make this into a countrywide ban.

I'd say it's the minister we'd have to talk to.

How does one go about that?

Talking to a minister is just like talking to your councillor. You can ask your councillor to make representations for you, or approach our local TD's to make a ministerial quiry for you.

But although DCC has put this ban into operation (without public consultation it would seem). people like us can still educate them and try to show them the error of their ways.

jameshayes

I know it is very unfair to take these dogs away from there owners and also to prevent genuine owners from getting new pets but in fact I believe these dogs need alot of exercise and need as much room as possible to walk and play, In an apartment (as many of these would be) I dont think a dog would have enough room to socialize properly - a dog needs its own space and it needs its quiet time and if a dog doesn't get proper rest and therefore gets stressed it is more inclined to bite...

arybvtcw0eolkf

Texas wrote:

Labour councillor Kevin Humphreys said he understood council tenants may feel discriminated against, but he hoped that this was just the first step to banning these breeds nationally.

Well chaps, and lassies!! ... Here's who we begin with;

Kevin Humphreys;

http://www.labour.ie/kevinhumphreys/

Lets get started?.

copacetic

Annika30 wrote:

Constant irresponsible breeding specifically to produce aggressive dogs

yet you don't think these dogs should be banned?

So you see that clearly you have a very poor understanding of the subject.

you've basically just said exactly what I did, so where is my poor understanding? I didn't realise that rabid attacks on anyone who disagrees with you were the standard on this forum, I'll leave you to your little love in.