Restricred breed list - omfg

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

EDIT: If owners were properly educated the result might also be lower, but what's easier to control? insuring the owners learn to handle their pets, or just muzzling them all.

anyway, it is what it is there is no point in rehashing old arguments, I just wanted to illustrate why I think a muzzle is a good thing (sometimes)

Muzzle all dogs? Where do you stop then, should we start muzzling cats too, and hamsters, and rabbits and horses? Because I'v been bitten by all of those but never a dog!
Muzzles are a good thing, I don't disagree with your there but I don't think there should be a blunt x,y or z breeds have to wear them, it should be that if your dog needs a muzzle it wears one, but why muzzle friendly dogs just because of how they look?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some other breeds suggested to be put on the restricted breeds list when it was being brought in, boxers and english bulldogs if I'm not mistaken? I would love to know why they chose the breeds they did when deciding on the list, I would bet my big toe that there were <100 akita's, tosa's and pit bulls in this country at the time yet now they've rocketed in popularity. If it was on the basis that if a dog attacked these breeds were the most likely to do damage then why not put every dog over 30kg on it, even a labrador sized dog can do serious damage.

Ask anyone who works with a wide variety of dog breeds on a regular basis (vets, nurses, groomers, trainers, rescues etc.) and they will all tell you that it's never the breed, it's always the owner. Some will say 'it's westies, jrts, etc. that you've to watch' but again it's because of the types of people that these breeds attract, people who want a small cute dog that they believe needs very little exercise and training because it's small and what do you end up with a wound up unsocialised little ankle snapper. But as with the restricted breeds put these dogs with knowledgable owners who will train, socialize and exercise them and you have some of the friendliest dogs!
Apologies for my longwinded way of explaining it but to summarize it's all down to the 2-legged animal on the other end of the lead!

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

the damn pic didn't load...

But it is about dog bites / strikes, not about breeds or specific types of dog, It just says 240+ 0-4 were bitten, and almost the same amount of 5-9. These kids cannot possibly understand a dogs body language other than a snarl.

Education is a great idea, and I wish more would read about the dogs they buy, I myself rushed into buying my dog, but in 3 weeks I have spent almost all my free time trying to source info.
These kids need either better parents, or a muzzle on the dogs, not all dogs will bite, of course not, and when they do it might not even be intentional, but some will.

This is just how I think, the dog is 2nd to human safety no matter how much I love it, she could even be destroyed if she bites the wrong person.

I've been wrong before, I could easily eat a slice of humble pie I'm not that proud,vI'm not 100% up on the facts of the topic, but from what I know, I prefer to put people first.

Can I just say that the majority of dog bites happen in the dog's own home (I have no statistics or proof to back that up and I'm too lazy and tired to go looking right now), so how do you stop these bites? Dog's can't wear muzzles 24/7.

Vince32

I'm not playing Devils advocate here, there may well be no dangerous breeds, there is a law that says these breeds must be controlled, that isn't optional.

All I'm trying to say on this thread is while dogs have access to kids who don't know better they can and should be muzzled, even if the dog has no prior history.

If an adult gets bitten he would probably just laugh it off, understanding the dog responded to elements in its environment or a prior disposition.

If anything, either give owners the "owners test" or make sure the dog can't hurt the kids. There is no excuse for a dog biting a kid, even if the kid poked it in the eye and pulled its ears while grabbing its tail and singing a westlife song. It should never be possible.

That's my point, the list is a pointless exercise I think my first post was shock and disgust, and it's a piece of "feel good" legislation, but as owners, we should always put safety first, its only fair. If you think its fair for the kids to learn the hard way that's fine.

You raised some very good points, but all I really wanted to know was if the Husky was on the list and what age it should start wearing the muzzle if it was.

I don't know how I got drawn into this debate, but I must leave it here, please feel free to continue to discuss pro's and con's.

Thanks for the information

ISDW

So basically you're saying that all dogs should be muzzled at all times around children.

Fair enough.

john t

Taceom wrote: »

What does 'Restricted Breed List' mean?

restricted breed list is a list of 10 dog breeds and includes cross breed of breed list, they have restrictions for lead lenght , age of walker, muzzle . and such....

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

I'm not playing Devils advocate here, there may well be no dangerous breeds, there is a law that says these breeds must be controlled, that isn't optional.

All I'm trying to say on this thread is while dogs have access to kids who don't know better they can and should be muzzled, even if the dog has no prior history.

If an adult gets bitten he would probably just laugh it off, understanding the dog responded to elements in its environment or a prior disposition.

If anything, either give owners the "owners test" or make sure the dog can't hurt the kids. There is no excuse for a dog biting a kid, even if the kid poked it in the eye and pulled its ears while grabbing its tail and singing a westlife song. It should never be possible.

That's my point, the list is a pointless exercise I think my first post was shock and disgust, and it's a piece of "feel good" legislation, but as owners, we should always put safety first, its only fair. If you think its fair for the kids to learn the hard way that's fine.

You raised some very good points, but all I really wanted to know was if the Husky was on the list and what age it should start wearing the muzzle if it was.

I don't know how I got drawn into this debate, but I must leave it here, please feel free to continue to discuss pro's and con's.

Thanks for the information

Just about the highlighted bit there, I'v said it before but dogs are the only species that we have this hysterical dogs must never do wrong, exactly as I said before if a horse were to kick someone (whether because it was teased as you describe or just because it's acting the b*llox) you just curse it off and learn from the experience, people just accept that horses are animals and sometimes animals kick, bite etc. A lot of people seem to believe that dogs are humans in furry coats and must abide by the same rules we do, they're animals just like horses, cats, rabbits, hamsters, cattle and sheep are. People would be doing well if they kept this in mind the next time their darling three year old is pulling out of the dog poking it in the eye and pulling it's ears.

As you have learned huskies are not on the restricted breeds list, but if that list were ever to be revised I have a strong feeling huskies would probably be added to it because of the amount of idiots buying them too look hard with their wolf! :rolleyes: So while your breed isin't on the list just keep in mind that some day it could (but hopefully not).

Graces7

Zapperzy wrote: »

Just about the highlighted bit there, I'v said it before but dogs are the only species that we have this hysterical dogs must never do wrong, exactly as I said before if a horse were to kick someone (whether because it was teased as you describe or just because it's acting the b*llox) you just curse it off and learn from the experience, people just accept that horses are animals and sometimes animals kick, bite etc. A lot of people seem to believe that dogs are humans in furry coats and must abide by the same rules we do, they're animals just like horses, cats, rabbits, hamsters, cattle and sheep are. People would be doing well if they kept this in mind the next time their darling three year old is pulling out of the dog poking it in the eye and pulling it's ears.

As you have learned huskies are not on the restricted breeds list, but if that list were ever to be revised I have a strong feeling huskies would probably be added to it because of the amount of idiots buying them too look hard with their wolf! :rolleyes: So while your breed isin't on the list just keep in mind that some day it could (but hopefully not).

Safety needs to be first. Idealism is all well and good, but this is Ireland and we need to be realistic. I saw with the collie how terrified folk can be re a dog with what was a simple nip from a young neglected dog who should have been trained. Our LLs wife was so scared she would never get out of the car near the house. Years later; collie was seen as dangerous which is why she was dumped as she was.

Yet the LL would bring his kids to play with her and never an issue. Fear is an interesting thing.

We need also to know that however "wrong" the law is, it is the law and if you break it you must know and accept the possible consequences.

Some here have said that dogs do get used to a halti or muzzle. Certainly collie got accustomed very easily to a collar and lead when we took her in. There is no need for a dog to be "unsocialised" thus. Just takes a bit of time and a positive and firm attitude.

Safety of children is paramount, as Vince avers. This is the rule now, here. Ireland is light years behind in animal welfare..

getz

Vince32 wrote: »

yeah I agree in part, but that's how the law makers want us to handle our animals, so that's what I'll do if I ever own one.

anyways thanks for pointing me toward the correct list, and sorry for stirring an old pot, I know a lot of people don't believe there should be a list and its a heated subject.

I just heard about this today, and I wanted clarification.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html

you can ignore that list,it was updated in 1997,on the old list some [i know all about dogs] politician put the bulldog down as a restricted breed,that was expected to be muzzled ?.and it was pointed out to the minister, [1] how do you muzzle a bulldog and [2] has he ever heard of a bully biting anyone,also to highlight the bully muzzling problem,a dublin lad walked his bully with a muzzle tied on its backside, the doggy press had a field day,

Irishchick

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

toadfly

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

Nothing that makes sense. Media hype mainly from what I can figure.

DamagedTrax

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

more to the point what is the criteria to enforce it?

ive been stopped twice by police in inchicore asking about my girl - what breed is she, is she chipped etc.. i walk her with short lead, muzzle and harness.

i walk her once a week in my parents area (much more upmarket than inchicore) with a longer lead and with the muzzle just hanging from her neck, ive had police stop and rub her but ive never once been questioned.

from my experience the RB list has little to do with dogs and everything to do with your social situation.

getz

Irishchick wrote: »

What is the actual criteria for a dog to be placed on the restricted breeds list???

well a councillor in gory when asked about the restricted breed list,he said in the press,i think all ugly dogs should be muzzled,i can sympathize with him,i have seen his wife.

Discodog

I tried to find out how the RB list was drawn up & all I heard that it was a Dublin Councillor who suggested the breeds. People need to realise that most of our politicians do not have a clue - even the one's that support welfare. For example Gormley said, in a debate, that microchips went into a dog's ears ! Afterwards it was explained to him that they went in the neck yet a few day's later he was referring to microchips in the ears again.

The Canadian idea is good in principle but would be a nightmare here. You can only have competence tests, sliding scale registrations etc if the implementers & enforcers are knowledgeable. You only need to view the dog license figures to see how ineffective any future legislation would be.

Another example is the discussions that preceded the DBEB. Part of the Bill will increase the cost of dog licenses - a lot of people missed this bit ! Many lobbied for the idea of a much higher license fee with reductions for vaccinating, neutering & microchipping. Needless to say the idea was ignored & the fee just increased.

EDIT: This was after the restricted breed debate & instigated by Sargent in 2002. It gives an indication to their way of thinking. Some excerpts:

Against this background. it seems that the relatively significant costs which would accompany the introduction of any obligatory system of microchipping would not be commensurate with the benefits to be realised from such a system.

I refer to a letter I recently received from a female constituent. Her husband, whose right arm was amputated, was attacked by two bull mastiffs belonging to a neighbour. In regard to the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, she recommends that a special licence be required for ownership of the breeds that need to be muzzled when in public and that the facilities in which these dogs must be kept be inspected and approved by the relevant authorities before the licence is granted, and that that apply annually.

Any dog warden will tell the Minister that they live not knowing how they will cope with the violence they encounter. I heard of a dog warden who was called to a house to take away a Staffordshire bull terrier. When he arrived 13 such terriers appeared and he could restrain only one with the standard issue restraining pole.

There are many examples of horrific attacks, such as the one in Whitestown in Blanchardstown where a German shepherd dog viciously savaged [506]a 15 year old boy. Other breeds, like springer spaniels, are not in the dangerous category but have carried out horrific attacks on young children.

This is the worrying bit that suggested more rigorous breed specific legislation:

Mr. N. Ahern: I accept the Deputy's point. Sometimes these replies do not seem to answer a burning question. It is an horrific problem for someone to have. I will see what can be done to ensure more enforcement and penalties for those who do not observe the law. Perhaps we could also look at going further. Laws must be enforced.


http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2002/11/27/00025.asp

Discodog

So after much searching I found the answer on ...........Boards

It was Joe Costello & EGAR tried to raise the debate here & it is a riveting read !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055039260

Vojera

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html

I was wondering, on both this (the 1998 revision) and the old one, "ban dogs" are mentioned. Pardon my ignorance, but what do they mean by that? Are there certain breeds that aren't allowed in Ireland at all? And if so, what are they? Or are they actually a breed?

Discodog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandog

boxerly

boxers?aaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Discodog

boxerly wrote: »

boxers?aaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes but these idiots don't know their breeds. I have had four fabulous Boxers & there would always be people that were scared of them. Does your Bulldog bite ? Joe Costello campaigned for BSL, which results in innocent dogs being killed, yet he has supported the Greyhound bill. There is no consistency.

All it would need is for a Boxer to be accused of attacking a child & they could easily end up on a list.

DamagedTrax

Discodog wrote: »

All it would need is for a Boxer to be accused of attacking a child & they could easily end up on a list.

and it could happen very soon

there are a few very big boxers popping up around my area lately and only young lads behind the lead. the dogs are taking them for a walk, no training at all.

boxers are loveable playful nutjobs but they can be big powerful dogs and need training just as much as the breeds on the restricted list

luckyfrank

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

DamagedTrax

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

you might want to find more reliable sources, that page is a joke. they cant even post a pic of a real PBT. this is an amercian bully (an X of pitbull and american staffy and bulldog as far as i know)


this is a good example of pitbull terrier.

It is common knowledge that this dog breed can even mangle the human to death as pit bull locks its jaws onto the booty until it is dead.

it is common knowledge that no breed has the physical capabilities to lock their jaws onto "the booty"

Discodog

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

I guess that no matter how much people explain that there is no such thing as a dangerous breed there will be some who still believe that there is.

wonderfulname

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

You do realise you just took the word of one, unverifiable, personal website as the truth just because it's a static page on the net?

Unless it's first hand information or linked directly to first hand information you just don't do that, if I was bothered I could set up a considerably more professional looking page in a few minutes and at minimal cost claiming Jack Russell pups are the no.1 killers in south east Asia.

That site gives absolutely no valid reason why a husky could be deemed the 4th most dangerous breed.

The Sweeper

Vince32 wrote: »

I don't know what to say here, I can see both sides of the fence, I guess the only way to reverse the law would be to prove somehow that it doesn't work as intended or at all, or to show it makes the situation worse in general terms.

Vince32, this has been proven. It's been proven in Germany, Italy and Holland, some states in the US and in Calgary. That's why breed specific legislation has been overturned.

It's actually very difficult to get dog bite statistics for breeds. It's not collected in hospital data and anyone who claims it is, well they're pulling your leg. The only time breed specific dog attack data has been collected in a hospital setting it's been done by specific study groups over the course of say, one month, in an agreed single hospital setting.

All hospital inpatient stays in Western countries are subject to data anlaysis using the International Classification of Diseases (currently the 10th edition - ICD-10). ICD-10 has an alphanumeric code related to every single ailment and procedure you could possibly think of.

Hospitals employ specialist clinical coders who analyse every patient history on discharge and log a series of codes to identify what the patient had done to them.

Up to recently the ICD had a single code for dog injury, and if you had to spend a night in hospital beause you'd been bitten by a dog, the reason for your inpatient stay was coded with that code. Additionally, if your overzealous dog greeted you by bouncing on you when you came home and they knocked you over and you sprained your wrist, the reason for your inpatient stay was coded with that same code.

The latest revision has two sub-codes - one specifically for a dog bite, the other for contact with a dog (covers all those other innocuous injuries). So now they do collect dog bite data, but I can absolutely guarantee you that none of that data focuses in any way on the breed responsible for the bite.

The ICD information is where the government gets its mainline dog bite statistics from - that's how they know the number of people hospitalised due to dog bites every year. They can also backwards extrapolate to get additional data that would attest to the severity of the bite, the age of the victim and their residential postcode.

However it was when specialist research groups started to do things like sit in A&E departments for a few months and interview dog bite victims, that's when they started to realise - no single breed is any more implicated than any other breed. Logically, large dogs can do more damage than small dogs in a sustained attack, but that 'large dogs' remit includes the adorable family golden retriever, the bernese mountain dog and the great dane, for instance - none of whom are dogs you associate with dog bite incidents.

As it stands breed specific legislation is not proven, in any jurisdiction, to have any positive impact on dog bite incidence. There is no statistical evidence, anywhere that the legislation has been implemented, that it makes the blindest bit of difference whatsoever to the actual number of people hospitalised for dog bites.

Additionally, the enforcement of BSL costs a lot of money that would be better redirected into programs of training and education for the public and dog owners and into doing things like setting up off-leash parks, river walks and beaches so owners have places they can run their dogs and socialise them to ensure they're happy members of society.

Last thing - when BSL comes into legislation in a region, it arguably increases the risk to the public from aggressive dogs. Irresponsible owners deliberately stray their dogs as they don't want to be fined for owning an unregistered restricted breed. They also hide the dogs and don't socialise them for the same reasons. The state of Victoria, Australia, implemented breed specific legislation in September 2011 in response to a fatal attack on a child in Melbourne's outer suburbs. They introduced a one-month amnesty where anyone owning a restricted breed could register it and abide by guidelines to keep it always muzzled and leashed, desexed and kept in a locked run or inside the house at all times when it wasn't on a leash.

The media initially praised the strict new laws, but it's not even three months, dog attacks are continuing, the appeals to the VCAT tribunal from owners who believe their dog has been incorrectly identified as a restricted breed (like Lennox) have started, with all of the incumbent expense to the taxpayer and stress, and dog wardens and members of the public have been attacked by aggressive dogs deliberately strayed by irresponsible owners.

Oh - and dogs are still biting kids all over the state, because BSL doesn't work.

Wibbs

DamagedTrax wrote: »

it is common knowledge that no breed has the physical capabilities to lock their jaws onto "the booty"

+1, yet how many eejits do you hear say this about all sorts of breeds? Kerry Blues are another I've heard this said about. "backward facing teeth you know? Yes. Can't let go once they bite". Not exactly a good evolutionary bet that one. PBT's don't even have that high a bite strength. GSD's and Rotties have higher. By a 100ft lbs plus higher. The average Lab isn't far off PBT bite strength. A great dane has higher again. As would an Irish wolfhound.

The RB list is daft IMHO. The whole dog biting lark is pretty skewed too. People will go batshít crazy if a dog even nips them and may even have it destroyed. You'll get plenty of people right behind them too. "Oh it's tasted blood you know. Never trust that dog again" kinda guff. Yet the same people will barely bat an eyelid if a pet cat scrapes or bites them. I seem to really freak cats out for some reason and cats have had a go at me once or twice, usually because I was being stupid and not reading the obvious signs for "feck off!". At no point would I suggest that any of those moggies be put down for being dangerous. Horses can be bitey and stampy and kicky if you're not careful yet the same handwringing nonsense isn't brought to bear on them. I wonder how many horses have been shot for having a nibble or kicking? Pretty few in number I'd imagine. Hamsters can bite. Parrots can give you a right nasty wound, yet again we don't have the placards out for their blood. TBH given the dog is an apex predator living in our homes and walking on our streets it actually amazes me how few actual attacks there are.

Discodog

BSL masks the real problem of irresponsible owners.

BSL does nothing to reduce dog bites from other breeds.

You can't genetically test a breed so you can only identify it by it's appearance. This means that many dogs are misidentified & wrongly killed.

BSL means that Wardens have to focus on specific breeds rather than dangerous dogs. It can actually cause more bites.

The kind of people who encourage aggressive behaviour or are generally irresponsible owners won't abide with the law. If one breed is banned they will move on to a different breed.

BSL punishes responsible owners just because they have the wrong breed. The irresponsible owners will often hide or abandon their banned dog.

We need to focus on responsible ownership not useless legislation.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

We need to focus on responsible ownership not useless legislation.

+1

This is the real source of the problem.Its the little scumbags that think owning a so called restricted breed makes them look cool.

In the last few months Ive seen at least five 15-16 year olds walking around with Akitas--they are barely big enough themselves to handle a dog that powerful but for some reason they think its great to be seen with one.

Theres one bloke Ive seen that keeps setting his Akita on smaller dogs--well you know winding the dog up while hes walking it and a smaller dog walks past.Thats a disaster waiting to happen.

Vince32

I do believe there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, who ever lets animals get into this condition should be jailed or shot

Zapperzy

Vince32 wrote: »

I do believe there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, who ever lets animals get into this condition should be jailed or shot

You post 2 photos that reinforce the stereotypical pit bulls/rotties are aggressive and snack on small child idea, photos I believe I have seen used in a few tabloid headlines. Then post a completely non-related photo of an obese rottie and change the subject altogether, apart from being one of the restricted breeds what else has it got to do with the subject?

Discodog

Vince32 wrote: »

I do believe there are no bad dogs,

Then why post pics of dogs being made to look aggressive ?

I can almost hear the press photographer saying "Can you get him to foam at the mouth"