DCC: Their at it again!. Gurrrr

Dyr

Mairt wrote: »

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 )

Mairt, i get the exact same thing every single day down my old mans place. Both our dogs are always on leads and they're tormented by every poxy neihborhood dog incuding some big old lab thats now attacking them.

WindSock

Road tax? Nct? Insurance? Parking wardens? Escalating fuel prices?
I see where you are coming from, yes. There are parts of the law that I don't agree with, yes. There are things that I don't agree with that are illegal but are because some few pricks go and ruin it for everyone else, yes. But I still don't see how people are being discriminated against, just because they live in council houses*. There happen to be a lot of bad elements that also live in council houses. This is why this is happening.







*Again, not all people who live in council houses are bad elements.

EGAR

WindSock wrote: »

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?

I have lived with Pit Bulls for a long time in Germany, the States and here in Ireland. Hundreds of Pit Bulls went through my rescue on their way to a new and better home after having them rescued from unsavoury people and from the pounds. Never once has one attacked me or shown the slightest inclinination to do so. Pit Bulls owe alot of the the hype to their name, I much prefer the oldfashioned name for the breed which was *Bull and Terrier* which is exactly what they are. Even the game bred Pit Bull have been selectevely (sp) bred of a long number of years to be be human friendly, how else can they be separated in a pit without attacking their handlers? Yes, some of them are dog aggressive - no doubt about it. However, even *fighting* Pit Bulls remain friendly to humans. A good example for this is Glor who had lost a fight and was beaten by his owner with a sledgehammer and when that did't kill him the scumbag took a plastic bag to suffocate him. Glor was with me for 4 years, he underwent horrendous pain and long operations but not once did he even growl. He remained friendly to everyone, friend and stranger alike: http://www.egar.org/memory.htm

Alot of it is also due to people saying it was a Pit Bull attack when in reality is was another breed/corss breed. No doubt these dogs can bite like any other breed of dogs. Temperament wise I find them very even, no ups and downs and mine are all great with kids. I would never leave a dog regardless of the breed unsupervised with a child, that is a recipy for desaster. Almost all deadly accidents involving dogs have been on children and in almost all of them the children were alone with the dogs.

And for a finish, you may have seen the Panorama program about dog fighting. *Starring* was a *five star* *blue chip* Pit Bull imported from Finland. This dog lives with me since last August, he has never been fought, he has NO scars and he was terrified when he arrived here. False reporting at its best. The BBC made their money and forgot about him just as fast.

Nipper the BBC dog with my son:

EGAR

Oh and while I am at it. Read this first:

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=sold-dog-of-death%26method=full%26objectid=20276186%26siteid=93463-name_page.html

And then read this:

http://www.thepeoplespuppy.com

WindSock

Hm. Thanks for enlightening me about pitbulls. I had an image in my head that they all looked like this:



But those two examples of journalism are no different from each other. Sure, they both paint opposite images of the dog they want you to see but the methods are still the same.

EGAR wrote: »

Oh and while I am at it. Read this first:

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=sold-dog-of-death%26method=full%26objectid=20276186%26siteid=93463-name_page.html

And then read this:

http://www.thepeoplespuppy.com

I understand there are no bad dogs, only bad owners. My beef in this thread though are with the people who are shouting they are being discriminated against. The only discrimination I see are against the pets, not the people.

Nevertheless, thanks to you who have shown me that pitbulls are not as ugly as everyone says (I hate to fall for the media trap) I will not flinch the next time I am told that the dog I am petting is a pitbull.

I will support your campaign to fight for the underdog :pac:

Dyr

Thats a bull terrier and they're lovely dogs usually

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bambi wrote: »

Thats a bull terrier and they're lovely dogs usually

Their looks are certainly an aquired taste, personally I love 'em.

But regardless of their looks, they've the heart of a lion. Brilliant dogs.

Lilly/DNB

GA361 wrote: »

Whoa Mairt,Stall de ball there!
I thought that this forum was pro-animals.Compulsive neutering+compulsive neutering contracts are a great thing.
If a dog is neutered then there is no chance of it having a load of pups and then that load of pups having to be killed.I'd love to say that we live in a hoity-toity ideal fantasy world where every dog-owner and breeder is a responsible owner/breeder . . . . .but unfortunately we dont.

A flat(private or corporation) is no place to breed a dog.PERIOD.
If the DCC are trying to prevent residents from owning dogs that is wrong and shouldn't happen. . . . but it is 100pc write to prevent 'accidents' and irresponsible breeding.

Council tenants cant be blamed for irresponsible breeding or irresponsible ownership this proposed ban is not about the over population of dogs or dogs been put to sleep in pounds as we all know that the puppy farmers are to blame for that and they also own their own homes, i have nothing at all against spay/neutering but when its mandatory for certain breeds and only for council tenants i do have a problem.

we are council tenants i don't understand just because i don't own my own home i am being labelled not responsible enough to own a certain breed of dog, i don't see why DCC tenants are being labelled unfit to show a certain breed of dog nor can we adopted one of these breeds from a pound or shelter. We already have two-tier health etc in Ireland is this what it's coming to two-tier dog ownership?

i have had American bull terriers for 21 years i have never had a problem with this breed but I am being told i can never own this breed again when my dogs are gone. The people who are causing these problems with these breeds are the people who need to be addressed not responsible owners whether you own your home or not.

The banning of breeds is not the answer as you might already know Holland have lifted its ban on "pit bulls" pit bulls are ban in the UK but yet there are thousands of pit bulls in the UK, ban's only take the responsible owners away from these breeds as its only responsible owners who will abide the law leaving these breeds in the hands of the irresponsible that solves nothing.
BSL only persecutes the innocent and well behaved loved pets and it protects the irresponsible by putting the blame on the dog rather than on the owner.

Lilly/DNB

Mairt wrote: »

If you know the history behind this campaign you'll know that DCC along with The Greens and Joe Costello of The Labour party have proposed to bring this policy in nation wide.

Its in everyone's interest to stop this.

well said it is the first step up the ladder people do need to look at whats happening here

EGAR

Hehehe, WindSock, your post made me smile. You are not alone in thinking that the English Bull Terrier is a Pit Bull. I have had reporters here who asked me after the interview to meet a Pit Bull and nearly fell off the couch when I told them they had one sitting on their lap for the last half an hour .

Nothingcompares

What breed of dog are people talking about when they say pitbull? Staffs? or these guys?

EGAR

Yes, the American Pit Bull Terrier. However, the APBT is not a recognised breed by the IKC which makes it alot easier to pass off crosses etc as APBT. The amount of people who think they have an APBT when their dog is, in reality, a cross bred Staffie or another bull breed is unreal. Most dogwardens I know can't tell an APBT from a Staffie or Staffie x. As I have posted before, I have gotten an adult Whippet x as a Pit Bull pup from a dogwarden in Dublin. This is just one example, there have been many more in the 11 years of my doing rescue.

The name American Pit Bull is misleading though as it was Irish and English immigrants who brought the prototype Bull and Terrier with them to the US. But the American Kennel Club were the first to create a breed standard, hence the name American Pit Bull Terrier. This is an interesting link: http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/item.php?item=68

There were moves afoot in New York to change the name as it was associated with bad image, e.g. give a dog a bad name.
Link: http://www.understandinganimals.com/news/35

Holland (who has one of the strictest Breed Specific Legislations on mainland Europe) has just abandoned the law as not working. Bite statistics have shown that it made no impact whatsoever (not in terms of APBT biting but in terms of incidents in general). 119 seized dogs have been returned to their owners, some of them half dead from kennel stress and neglect.

The UK has introduced BSL in 1991 and banned APBT. 17 years on, more APBT than ever can be found in the UK. Many family pets are being seized and the owners have to fight for their lives in court. None of these dogs have been aggressive, they were seized because of the way they look. Many suffer cruelly in the holding kennels.

EGAR

The Irish have played a big role in the development of this breed, especially the Boston-Irish. Many of the founder sires of breeding lines came from Irish stock. Many APBT fanciers insist that the APBT was solely Irish by origin.

Several strains such as the *Old Family Rednose* can be traced back to Irish dogs.

EGAR

And from America itself, a voice of reason:

PIT BULLS: BELIEVING THE BIG LIE
November 3, 2007



German filmmaker Fritz Kippler, Goebbels’ most effective propagandists for the Nazi party, once said that two steps were necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it. The first was to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that “even the most feebleminded could understand.” The second was to repeat the oversimplification over and over. If these two steps were followed, people would always come to believe the Big Lie.

Today’s big lie in the United States concerns a mythical monster dog that was created by the Humane Society of the United States in order to line their pockets by stopping dog fighting. At the time dog fighting was legal in the late 1970’s. Dog fighting was dying out due to a lack of interest. It was legal, regulated and sanctioned until the HSUS worked so dilligently to have dog fighting made illegal. Today dogfighting, being illegal, is bigger, and bloodier than ever it was when legal. It is no longer governed by rules, and regulations nor is it operated under sanctions. The dogs are not revered as of old, they are simply fodder for the machine.

HSUS has a very good publicity department that feeds disinformation to the sensationalistic media. To one who takes notice, in articles about “pit bulls” the term may appear more than two dozen times compared to articles about other dogs whose identification may only be mentioned once, if at all.

There is no such breed of dog that is recognized, or registered by any dog registry as “pit bull”. Yet under the guise of banning this mythical monster there are nearly eighty breeds of dogs that are restricted, or prohibited from ownership in venues throughout the USA. (See http://www.povn.com/rdows)

There is something about the human psyche that loves a good monster story, and by using the steps that are named above they have been created whole cloth and aimed at untold ethnicities of people. We are as a nation geared toward dismissing these tactics when they are directed at our fellow human beings, except for a small minority of bigots. Yet we do not recognize them when they are directed through animals at the people who own them. The very people who would decry bigotry directed at their fellow humans are among the first to spout that same bigotry towards dogs, and their owners. They think nothing of parroting the “pit bull” myths.

Dogs are as individual within their respective breeds, as are we human beings within our ethnicity. It would be impossible for any one dog breeder to make the exact same dog time, after time. Yet we are supposed to believe that all breeders can replicate a monster at will? That is the big lie. Dr. Frankenstein was only able to create one monster in the fable by Mary Shelley, and it killed him. If the big lie concerning “pit bulls” were true, wouldn’t the U.S. government snatch up these “monster” breeders to teach them how to make military dogs? In the myth, only very stupid, drug dealing, knuckle dragging dregs would own “pit bulls”, yet they are also brilliant geneticists who can at will create these “monsters” of mythical proportion that no other dog breeders are capable of creating.

Legislators pass laws that are based upon myth instead of addressing the problem of irresponsible dog owners. Banning mythical beasties will not make our communities safer. Responsible Dog Owners has devised a set of Model Dog Owner Regulations that address the dog owner rather than the dog. It is available upon request. Our laws in the United States of America must be written to control human behaviors. When our lawmakers attempt to define animal behaviors, and to criminalize those behaviors, they have lost touch with the very spirit of the law. No animal will ever be cognizant of any law that has ever been, or will ever be written, nor will an animal ever have the capacity to function responsibly to any law.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
P.O. Box 1406
Newport, WA 99156

http://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/pit-bulls-believing-the-big-lie/

GA361

Lilly/DNB wrote: »

Council tenants cant be blamed for irresponsible breeding or irresponsible ownership this proposed ban is not about the over population of dogs or dogs been put to sleep in pounds as we all know that the puppy farmers are to blame for that and they also own their own homes, i have nothing at all against spay/neutering but when its mandatory for certain breeds and only for council tenants i do have a problem.

we are council tenants i don't understand just because i don't own my own home i am being labelled not responsible enough to own a certain breed of dog, i don't see why DCC tenants are being labelled unfit to show a certain breed of dog nor can we adopted one of these breeds from a pound or shelter. We already have two-tier health etc in Ireland is this what it's coming to two-tier dog ownership?

i have had American bull terriers for 21 years i have never had a problem with this breed but I am being told i can never own this breed again when my dogs are gone. The people who are causing these problems with these breeds are the people who need to be addressed not responsible owners whether you own your home or not.

The banning of breeds is not the answer as you might already know Holland have lifted its ban on "pit bulls" pit bulls are ban in the UK but yet there are thousands of pit bulls in the UK, ban's only take the responsible owners away from these breeds as its only responsible owners who will abide the lawleaving these breeds in the hands of the irresponsible that solves nothing.
BSL only persecutes the innocent and well behaved loved pets and it protects the irresponsible by putting the blame on the dog rather than on the owner.

:rolleyes:

You can spin this anyway you like with your left-wing,holier then thou-''i'm being discriminated against:(''-propoganda.I NEVER said that this rule should only be enforced on people in council flats. . . if you read my post properly you would have realised that I said all flats-''corporate and private'' should have to abide by this rule.If you see a flat as a reasonable place to breed a dog. . . . then I pity your poor judgement,and this legislation should be imposed on you. . . and you just so happen to live in a council flat.

What I am more surprised by is your ignorance of animal and human safety:eek:-just because you feel you are a responsible owner,you think that justifies 5 or 10 or 20 scumbags irresponsibly breeding dogs.

You are new to boards so don't get all preachy,ok;).

cowzerp

I was just listening to a billy connolly dvd about dogs!
he said that pit bulls where sharks with leads!
ugly pointed heads and eyes to the sides, Also said about tattoo'd fraternity owning rotty's and staff's, i've a tattoo and a rotty-:o.
ignorant yes, funny also..

EGAR

GA361 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You can spin this anyway you like with your left-wing,holier then thou-''i'm being discriminated against:(''-propoganda.I NEVER said that this rule should only be enforced on people in council flats. . . if you read my post properly you would have realised that I said all flats-''corporate and private'' should have to abide by this rule.If you see a flat as a reasonable place to breed a dog. . . . then I pity your poor judgement,and this legislation should be imposed on you. . . and you just so happen to live in a council flat.

What I am more surprised by is your ignorance of animal and human safety:eek:-just because you feel you are a responsible owner,you think that justifies 5 or 10 or 20 scumbags irresponsibly breeding dogs.

You are new to boards so don't get all preachy,ok;).

Sorry, but I find your post offensive and very much aggressive. There is no call for this, just because she is new that doesn't mean she can't say what she feels, after all this is a DISCUSSION board and not just your opinion counts because you post here longer.

Lily lives in a Council House, not a flat and she is not a breeder. She has the right to bring her side of the coin across in a civil manner and that's more than what you have done!

GA361

EGAR wrote: »

Sorry, but I find your post offensive and very much aggressive. There is no call for this, just because she is new that doesn't mean she can say what she feels, after all this is a DISCUSSION board and not just your opinion counts because you post here longer.

Lily lives in a Council House, not a flat and she is not a breeder. She has the right to bring her side of the coin across in a civil manner and that's more than what you have done!

If she had read any of my previous posts she would have seen that I held no ill-will to breeding dogs in any house(whether corporate or private),just as long as it is responsible breeding.What I said was 100 per cent crystal clear.Any flat(corporate or private) is no place to breed a dog.She put a spin on it though,saying that I was against dog ownership in council apartments and houses.I said I was completely against a certain breed ownership ban-OUT AND OUT-whether it be on council or private property.She completely manipulated my point.MY POINT was on irresponsible breeding.She said I was against the 'dangerous dog' breeds,but anyone who would have read any of my previous posts would know that I am completely against any ban on any dogs whatsoever.

I don't know whether she just misunderstood me or made some radical assumptions.Either way,she misrepresented my point.

arybvtcw0eolkf

GA361 wrote: »

You are new to boards so don't get all preachy,ok;).

And your only here a wet day yourself, but your attitude to Lilly stinks so whats your point?.

EGAR

I took offense to your aggressiveness(**with your left-wing,holier then thou-''i'm being discriminated against''-propoganda** - **What I am more surprised by is your ignorance of animal and human safety**) and the assumptions (**and you just so happen to live in a council flat.**)
you made.

We all have something to say on this matter but there is no reason why we can't do it in a civilised manner. After all sarcasm is the lowest form of wit .

cowzerp

WindSock wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance on the dog, but do they have incredibaly powerful jaws like everyone says?

I watched a program on dog bite power and the staff had about the same lb per sq inch power as a lab, rotties where the most powerful of the dogs tested by far and german shepards where 2nd. but its all irrelevant, staffs areprobably the leas likely dog to bite you anyway. do you never notice that a lot of oldpeople own staffies? this is because there so placid and friendly, some probably dont even know they have a dog that some call pitbull!

cowzerp

Mairt wrote: »

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.


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.

Mairt, i never muzzle my rottie-i tried once and it took 15 mins to get it on, he got so stressed out and i had to pin him down to put it on, 5 mins later he had it off! the whole ordeal upset me tbh.

i know my dog and he is friendly, if i see a dog near by a make it my business to keep him on his lead as if he was attacked i know he'd come out on top and he would be the baddy, he just wants to play though..

the law is an ass, the best thing to do would be to come down hard on irresponsible DOG owners and lay off people who train and love there dogs, i know loads of people who let there dogs roam the estate, mine are only ever with me or in there house.

GA361

EGAR wrote: »

I took offense to your aggressiveness(**with your left-wing,holier then thou-''i'm being discriminated against''-propoganda** - **What I am more surprised by is your ignorance of animal and human safety**) and the assumptions (**and you just so happen to live in a council flat.**)
you made.

We all have something to say on this matter but there is no reason why we can't do it in a civilised manner. After all sarcasm is the lowest form of wit .

My original post was civilised.As regards my second two posts. . . . I wouldn't call them aggresive. . . . just not PC. . . .It was the way in which Lily manipulated my perfectly logical point into something that it wasn't which riled me.And as regards that assumption about her being a council tennant,it wasn't an assumption at all,she said so herself.

EGAR

Now now, GA361, you assumed she lived in a council FLAT which she doesn't, she lives in a council HOUSE. I made that perfectly clear in both of m posts. I never said, that she wasn't a council tenant.

EGAR

As to the biting power in certain breeds:

“Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.” This is pure speculation at best, damaging myth at worse. There have been no exhaustive studies conducted to prove that Pit Bulls have the strongest jaws of any breed. There likely could not be any truly conclusive testing done to measure something like strongest breed PSI. A reason for this lies in the fact that dogs bite with varying pressure depending upon the situation, and what factors are driving the bite at that particular point in time. A dog cannot be instructed to bite down on a measuring device as hard as possible, so a tester could have no way of knowing whether or not a particular dog being tested is actually using its jaws to capacity in any given testing phase. There is also large size variation in any breed, and one must assume strength varies as well. A very large (but not typical or standard) Pit Bull may bite harder than a small Rottweiler, German Shepherd, or other breed, while a standard sized Pit Bull may not have as much jaw power as a larger, typical sized Rottweiler, etc. Also, if one breed is to claim “highest bite pressure”, all breeds would have to be compared. All 500+ of them.

Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of ‘pounds per square inch’ can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data.

http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html

GA361

Well tbh. . . what is the difference if I thaught she lived in an apartment. . . it was implied that she lived in a flat when she slated my comment which was soley about breeding in flats NOT HOUSES.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Right guys lets not all have a falling out over this.

GA, I know Lilly just through a few emails and from some media coverage. She's a great spokesperson for owners of bull breeds and I think your taking her up completely wrong.

GA361

Mairt wrote: »

Right guys lets not all have a falling out over this.

GA, I know Lilly just through a few emails and from some media coverage. She's a great spokesperson for owners of bull breeds and I think your taking her up completely wrong.

Well did she not take me up wrongly?
After all,my point was on dog breeding in any type of apartment,but she somehow interpereted it as if I was against the ownership of dogs in council housing.
That's probably what this is Mairt,a misinterperetation.

And yeah. . . API is a tight-knight forum. . . I wouldn't like to see a falling out either

arybvtcw0eolkf

Re. apartment living.

I know some dog owner's who've successful raised lovely dogs in DCC 'flats'.

Indeed I grew up in the flats on Balcurris Rd in Ballymun where we raised 'Cindy' for most of her 17yrs.

I'm not saying its ideal, but with the right owner and the right type of dog it can work out very well for them both.

GA361

Mairt wrote: »

Re. apartment living.

I know some dog owner's who've successful raised lovely dogs in DCC 'flats'.

Indeed I grew up in the flats on Balcurris Rd in Ballymun where we raised 'Cindy' for most of her 17yrs.

I'm not saying its ideal, but with the right owner and the right type of dog it can work out very well for them both.

I completely agree with you on that point,but you must agree that an apartment,although a sound place to own a dog,like a king charles for example,is no place to breed a dog?