DCC: Their at it again!. Gurrrr

whitser

EGAR wrote: »

Whitser, not just the English Bulldog...

GSD, Rough Collie, lots and lots of toy breeds etc have changed so much they are hardly recognisable anymore.

i know that but think the bull dog is the worst example of how things can go wrong. as a breed they are not a danger to anyone but themselves. its actually funny that they were ever on a dangerous dog list.
altough i think a dangerous owner list would be practicle then a dangerous dog list. in vast majority of cases when bull type terriers attack its normally when they had a fool for an owner.

lostinnappies

i agree, owners of dogs on the restricted list should have to go on a manditory training course BEFORE they get the dogs and should have to get a licence to have them. Dog training classes should be manditory for all breed of dogs not just on the restricted list. You have to have a licence for a car which can kill people .. to get it you need training. Why not make it manditory for dog licence.

getz

nobody knows what a bandog is because it is the name william shakespear called the bulldog , in one of his plays about 1600 but it always sounds good when you are banning things . just for the record the bulldog was taken off the restricted list in 1998 the bandog is still on it . dont ask me why

~Thalia~

lostinnappies wrote: »

i agree, owners of dogs on the restricted list should have to go on a manditory training course BEFORE they get the dogs and should have to get a licence to have them.

A mandatory trainng course for 'restricted' breeds? Why? As has been said a million times it is not dogs that are at fault here, it's their owners.
If you send owners of restricted breeds on training courses why not make it across the board for all dogs?
ONLY dog I have ever been bitten by was a Labrador, have rescued and fostered many many shepherds and NEVER had ANY agression from any of them, even the ones that were terribly treated.

It may have escaped your attention but ANYONE with a dog should have them licenced, that's not unique to owners of restricted breeds.

cowzerp

getz wrote: »

nobody knows what a bandog is because it is the name william shakespear called the bulldog , in one of his plays about 1600 but it always sounds good when you are banning things . just for the record the bulldog was taken off the restricted list in 1998 the bandog is still on it . dont ask me why

Actually the bandog is not a bulldog at all! its a mongrel really and can be a mix of many dogs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandog

whitser

getz wrote: »

nobody knows what a bandog is because it is the name william shakespear called the bulldog , in one of his plays about 1600 but it always sounds good when you are banning things . just for the record the bulldog was taken off the restricted list in 1998 the bandog is still on it . dont ask me why

a ban dog is a type of dog that was used at the end of a hunt to hold large prey like wolves,bears,boars etc..until the hunter could kill it. the ban dog is basically a lagre mastiff/bull type of dog. i think the term ban dog is used to describe a type rather then a breed. but i cant be sure. the word "ban" dog comes from the latin word to hold,if not latin some other language.

getz

whitser i stand corrected --in 1576 a doctor johannes caius said in his book the bandog was a mastiff/bulldog type of dog used for bullbaiting most bulldog breeders take this as meaning bulldog as the original no longer exist

WindSock

So getting a free house with restrictions on dangerous animal ownership equates to human rights abuse now? :rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

WindSock wrote: »

So getting a free house with restrictions on dangerous animal ownership equates to human rights abuse now? :rolleyes:

Although it suits some people to class DCC tenants as second class citizens, they're not.

DCC tenants are paying a rent, whereas my mortage is finished in seven years those in DCC housing will never finish paying a rent.

GUys this is very simple. If this ban is allowed through and proves anyway successful Joe Costello (Labour) and The Green's want this implimented country wide.

cowzerp

Mairt wrote: »

GUys this is very simple. If this ban is allowed through and proves anyway successful Joe Costello (Labour) and The Green's want this implimented country wide.

Mairt, some people around here just cant get that into there heads..

arybvtcw0eolkf

cowzerp wrote: »

Mairt, some people around here just cant get that into there heads..

I know Paul, sometimes I despair.

WindSock

Well then it's unfortunatley a sacrifice we all have to make. I think the country would be a fraction safer if scumbags are not allowed to own dangerous animals.

Note: I am not classing everyone who is living in a dcc a scumbag, but many of the abled yet unworking lazy scumbag class happen to live in dcc housing.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I think I smell snobbery in the air.

Dyr

yep, this topic always brings them out :rolleyes:

not all women are bitches BUT...

I'm not racist BUT..

beth-lou

WindSock wrote: »

Note: I am not classing everyone who is living in a dcc a scumbag, but many of the abled yet unworking lazy scumbag class happen to live in dcc housing.

Shocking generalisation there!

In terms of this legislation, it is not addressing the true problem and that is problem dog owners. Generally the dogs are ok, it's their handlers that are the problem and this legislation won't matter a bit to them any way. They will still ignore it as they ignore most everything else in terms of responsible dog ownership.

I have a german shepard cross and she is 10 years old, never a bother to anyone. She has never been let roam the streets either though as I understand that some people are afraid of dogs, and quite frankly I am afraid of cars and drivers and the safety of my dogs.

The simple solution would be to properly enforce the legislation that is already there and prosecute or confiscate dogs in cases where the owners are not doing their duty to their animals and their communities.

EGAR

WindSock wrote: »

Well then it's unfortunatley a sacrifice we all have to make. I think the country would be a fraction safer if scumbags are not allowed to own dangerous animals.

Note: I am not classing everyone who is living in a dcc a scumbag, but many of the abled yet unworking lazy scumbag class happen to live in dcc housing.

A sacrifice we all have to make? I happen to have Pit Bulls, I am neither a Council Tenant nor am I a scumbag nor are any of my dogs *dangerous*, neither are the nearly 300 Pit Bulls I have taken in and rehomed in the nearly 11 years of my doing rescue.

The country would be alot safer if money spend on campaigns against animals would be spent to create a task force to combat dog fighting as this often involves other crimes as well. Your post is ignorant and smacks of tabloid.

WindSock

Mairt wrote: »

I think I smell snobbery in the air.

Bambi wrote: »

yep, this topic always brings them out :rolleyes:

not all women are bitches BUT...

I'm not racist BUT..

Call it whatever you like. It's funny when someone has an attack on certain types of people who are living in council houses they are instantly called snobs. Even though I stressed I wasn't attacking everyone in council houses, just the lazy scumbag ones. Of course there are lazy scumbags everywhere, but deny the vast majority get what they can for less or for free in this country if you like.

WindSock wrote: »

Note: I am not classing everyone who is living in a dcc a scumbag, but many of the abled yet unworking lazy scumbag class happen to live in dcc housing.

EGAR

NIAMH HORAN

CUDDLY family pets such as Golden Retrievers and Cocker Spaniels are more likely to bite people than "vicious" dogs such as Pit bulls, according to new research into aggressive behaviour in dogs.

Although the research is not complete, Edmond O'Sullivan, a veterinary inspector with Cork County Council, has debunked some of the myths about vicious dogs.

His study, the first of its kind in Ireland, has also warned that dog owning is turning into a legal minefield.

The preliminary research found that "restricted breeds" such as the Staffordshire Pit Bull are not more likely to bite than non-restricted breeds.

It is the damage that a dog can do and not the likelihood that it could attack, which is central to a dog's restricted status, he explained.

"The idea of saying a breed is dangerous is neither here nor there. The reason certain breeds are restricted is not because they are more likely to bite but because, if they do attack, they are more likely to kill you.

"For example one of the restricted breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier, on the basis of our results, was one of the five breeds that were least likely to bite."

The five breeds he cited as being most likely to attack are the Golden Retriever, Labrador, German Shepherd, Rottweiler and Cocker Spaniel.

Mr O'Sullivan is now calling calling for the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs in Ireland because of the significantly low rate of owner prosecutions.Speaking before the findings of his project were due to be released, he said the entire area of dog owner responsibility had turned into a legal minefield.

"Micro-chipping of all dogs or even just restricted breeds is an absolute must. We have an absolute nightmare trying to enforce legislation here because owners can argue so easily that the dog isn't theirs. It's been a legal nightmare for us and there have been very few prosecutions in Ireland as a result."

The research, which took into account 100 dogs that had been previously involved in a biting incident, focused on both their past behaviour and the event itself.

With the data collected, O'Sullivan was able to find characteristic links between the dogs that had no history of previous aggressive behaviour and the dogs that had.

Preliminary findings suggested that adult dogs, which had been fully house trained, began to have house wetting accidents a certain period before the attack took place.

The project, which is due out in the next few weeks, was jointly undertaken by the Cork County Council veterinary department and the faculty of veterinary medicine at UCD. The aim of the scheme is to put together an education package which will teach how to prevent aggressive behaviour and biting by dogs.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=15181

WindSock

EGAR wrote: »

A sacrifice we all have to make? I happen to have Pit Bulls, I am neither a Council Tenant nor am I a scumbag nor are any of my dogs *dangerous*, neither are the nearly 300 Pit Bulls I have taken in and rehomed in the nearly 11 years of my doing rescue.

Good for you, and for the dogs you have rescued. You seem like a decent person, and no doubt many of the people here are too regarding their dogs. The problem is though that if anyone can get their hands on these dogs then they can easily fall into the wrong hands. And they have done. There have been many sacrifices made in the past because people are allowed the things they shouldn't be. Why should this issue be any different?

The country would be alot safer if money spend on campaigns against animals would be spent to create a task force to combat dog fighting as this often involves other crimes as well. Your post is ignorant and smacks of tabloid.

How much money is actually spent on campaigns against animals? (I am not asking an exact figure, but where is it all going to?)

My post is just a knee-jerk reaction. I hate when people start saying they are being discriminated against, when they have the privilage of living in a home that many of us cannot afford or have to wait a long long time to get into one. They should count themselves lucky they are allowed dogs at all, many rented flats don't even allow pets.

Dyr

I hate when people start saying they are being discriminated against, when they have the privilage of living in a home that many of us cannot afford or have to wait a long long time to get into one

and with that we get to your real issue

WindSock

My issue still doesnt take away from the fact that scumbags should not be allowed to own animals.

EGAR

Last year the DCC had leaflets printed with pictures of restricted breeds on them, for a finish they had to recall them as the Akita section sported a picture of a Border Collie. That is just one example of how tax payers money went down the drain. As to mr. Costello, I was *pitted* against him last year on an RTE talkshow, the man hasn't got a clue. He looked quite silly after I was finished with him.

Windsock, I got mauled by a yellow labrador a few years back, I spent days in hospital and have had more stitches than I care to remember. I only survived because I am used to dogs and are dog savy. Had this dog attacked a child or an inexperienced person than the outcome would have been different. But no paper printed that story because people don't want to believe that the adult version of the Andrex puppy can bite too. That has not put me off taking in Labs if I have the room. EVERY dog can bite and every breed can trained to be vicious.

The Pit Bull was once the most common breed in the US, after WWI they worked as herding dogs mostly. Nowadays, many Pit Bulls work as PAT dogs, in Search and Rescue (9/11!!), as Hearing Dogs and in law enforcement. The highest decorated obedience dog in the world is a Pit Bull.

I live with these dogs for most of my life. I will fight BSL wherever I encounter it, because I know BETTER.

It's the other end of the leash which we need to target.

WindSock

EGAR wrote: »

I only survived because I am used to dogs and are dog savy. Had this dog attacked a child or an inexperienced person than the outcome would have been different.

If it was a Pitbull that attacked you would you have survived aswell? Forgive my ignorance on the dog, but do they have incredibaly powerful jaws like everyone says?

arybvtcw0eolkf

WindSock wrote: »

My issue still doesnt take away from the fact that scumbags should not be allowed to own animals.

Sorry, I feel my comments earlier turned an argument against you.

I know where your coming from, but there are existing laws in place to deal with people owning dogs, dangerous or otherwise. But those laws aren't enforced by the relevant authorities.

I bring my dogs on a walk every evening. The puppy is too small even for the smallest muzzle, but other than that they're both on the lead. The older one is muzzled and I'm well able to control my dogs.

However, and this is not a word of a lie. Every evening the dogs are attacked, first by a golden Lab on the end of my road. I've approached the owner about it, but she's dealing with other issues in her life I guess (she likes a gargle )

Then by a host of other dogs, being on the muzzle mean's Jericho is almost totally defenceless and even with me there he's been left marked and needing vetinary care more than once.

But the owner's and neighbours of these same dogs will cross to the other path when they seen mine, because of their breed!.

I reported the dogs to the warden, to no avail. In fact (and there's a thread here about it) the warden paid me a visit and issued me with literature on the restricted breeds act!.

arybvtcw0eolkf

WindSock wrote: »

If it was a Pitbull that attacked you would you have survived aswell? Forgive my ignorance on the dog, but do they have incredibaly powerful jaws like everyone says?

Do a google search on Pitbull jaw's, I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

EGAR

Pit Bull jaws are like any other canine jaws. the *locking* of the jaw is a myth which has been scientifically disproved (sp?). I train all my dogs to let on command when they have a bone or a toy. Hardly feasible if their jaws would lock. Also, Pit Bulls are being used in law enforcement, hardly a job for a dog with a locking jaw!

Also, forget the rubbish about biting power and google it properly. You will be surprised. I would rather separate 2 fighting Pits than 2 fighting collies

Dyr

WindSock wrote: »

My issue still doesnt take away from the fact that scumbags should not be allowed to own animals.

And you'd be happy that the law would target anyone in council housing, so lets take anyone in dublin whos under 30s car off the road to protect our kids from scumbag drivers too, its a sacrifice we have to make I feel.

WindSock

I see on the wiki there that the lockjaw is a myth, and they are bred to be fighting dogs, but why do people think they are more harmful than you say? Is it all just media hype?

WindSock

Bambi wrote: »

And you'd be happy that the law would target anyone in council housing, so lets take anyone in dublin whos under 30s car off the road to protect our kids from scumbag drivers too, its a sacrifice we have to make I feel.

No, they just increase the insurance and they also take dangerous drivers off the road.

Dyr

I'd rather if they brought in sweeping legislation thats badly thought out and affects good and bad drivers indiscriminately because i have a chip on my shoulder about car owners. Im sure you'll understand where I'm coming from.