Looking for suggestions for walking my RBL dog off leash - Dublin

RainyDay

b_mac wrote: »

Why is this case different?

I didn't say it was different. I said I was commenting on the general issue.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Sorry this is a bit off topic..

I'm all for picking up the poo. I really am. I shovel more than my fair share of poo on a daily basis. But....I hate scaremongering, and "won't somebody think of the children" type posts. I assume you're referring to toxicariasis which is an extremely rare disease spread by roundworm contaminated faeces. In order for a child to be infected they need to ingest it, and I would hope that there would be some degree of parental responsibility exercised if a child was unfortunate enough to pick up or fall in dog faeces. The incidents of contamination are so rare that in the UK it affects less than 50 people per year. That's in a population of 60 million inhabitants so it's a minute, minute percentage. Out of that number the amount of people that actually go blind is less again, the numbers are so, so low that there's no definitive numbers. It might be one person a year, it might be zero.

Again, I'm absolutely not condoning not picking up poo, and it's a right pain the backside cleaning it off shoes (and buggy wheels if you are a parent), but the health risks are negligent, and are easily preventable with good housekeeping and responsible parenting. I don't think the health risks should be used as a scare tactic, as with all health 'risks' these things will grow legs and it will only serve to turn people off pet ownership full stop.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78700844

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Toxocariasis/Pages/Introduction.aspx

I'm not sure that the 50 people in the UK (which would equate to say 4 people in Ireland) would agree with you, but let's say we leave the health issue aside. No-one should have to clean dog faeces from their shoes, or their buggy wheels, or their wheelchair wheels. It's just not on.

borderlinemeath

RainyDay wrote: »

I didn't say it was different. I said I was commenting on the general issue.


I'm not sure that the 50 people in the UK (which would equate to say 4 people in Ireland) would agree with you, but let's say we leave the health issue aside. No-one should have to clean dog faeces from their shoes, or their buggy wheels, or their wheelchair wheels. It's just not on.

I'm sure they wouldn't. But if they were immunocompromised to begin with they should know to exercise more caution. If it was children, then the parents were inadequately supervising. Who lets their kids ingest faeces? It's an entirely avoidable disease.

sillysmiles

But surely the point is that if the general public weren't assertive and in "reminding" people to pick up after their dogs, there would be poss all over the place because it would become the societal norm to not pick up. Thereby making it more difficult for people who are immune-compromised to exercise more caution*.

*as if they should have to.

I think it is important that members of the public should speak up when they see something wrong happening in any sphere of reference, think of the small things, like people putting their feet on seats in buses, people pushing/skipping a queue.

And whether you disagree or not with the RBL the woman was right, the dog legally should be muzzled in public. url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html[/url. She may not have approached in the right way, but you have no idea if she was coming from a place of fear. But neither did the OP handle it in the right way and thereby re-engrained fear and misunderstanding of a fantastic animal.

borderlinemeath

sillysmiles wrote: »

But surely the point is that if the general public weren't assertive and in "reminding" people to pick up after their dogs, there would be poss all over the place because it would become the societal norm to not pick up. Thereby making it more difficult for people who are immune-compromised to exercise more caution*.

*as if they should have to.

I think it is important that members of the public should speak up when they see something wrong happening in any sphere of reference, think of the small things, like people putting their feet on seats in buses, people pushing/skipping a queue.

And whether you disagree or not with the RBL the woman was right, the dog legally should be muzzled in public. url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0123.html[/url. She may not have approached in the right way, but you have no idea if she was coming from a place of fear. But neither did the OP handle it in the right way and thereby re-engrained fear and misunderstanding of a fantastic animal.

I never said they shouldn't speak up?

My point was that using a very rare disease as a scaremongering tactic doesn't sit well with me, given how the BSL was a snapshot decision so who knows what a politician in power might do if enough momentum got behind a lobby that used it as a tactic for tighter leash controls on all breeds.

There should definitely be a civic movement towards speaking up, it should be viewed as completely unacceptable. If I saw somebody letting their dog defecate I would take a photo and send it in to my local newspaper, local facebook page (there's one locally specifically for dog fouling) along with the warden. I might not know where they live, so they may not give a hoot about me, but if their picture was printed they're bound to feel embarrassed in some way or other. Unfortunately I have never caught somebody in the act, as I walk rurally or on the beach when it's quiet.

And immunocompromised people do exactly that - exercise more caution, they know they're at risk not just from dog faeces, but from even simple things like bacteria from money, door handles etc. I have a family member that is just like that, she has to avoid a lot of what people consider 'normal' because of her condition. Yet she lives with a dog and manages to pick up the dogs poo without a problem.

tk123

This thread has gone from me imaging the OP chilling out (apart from the busybody) with his dog to thinking of that weird poo-eyes poster! http://trevorhart.blogspot.ie/

borderlinemeath

tk123 wrote: »

This thread has gone from me imaging the OP chilling out (apart from the busybody) with his dog to thinking of that weird poo-eyes poster! http://trevorhart.blogspot.ie/

Sorry, my bad, I helped drag it off topic.

That poster is scary!

RainyDay

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I'm sure they wouldn't. But if they were immunocompromised to begin with they should know to exercise more caution. If it was children, then the parents were inadequately supervising. Who lets their kids ingest faeces? It's an entirely avoidable disease.

Nice victim blaming there. Sure if all those girls didn't wear those damn sexy short skirts, they wouldn't get raped - right?

This is not a parenting issue. No parent can bring their kids to the park and microscopically examine the football everytime the kid picks it up. No parent can guarantee that a toddler won't stumble, and then put their hand to their mouth before the parent has a chance to clean it up.

It is indeed an "entirely avoidable disease". It is avoidable by dog owners cleaning up after their dogs.

DBB

I've held off intervening in the interests of discussion, but all this talk of dog crap, parenting etc is just getting way too off-topic. If all of that is something people would like to see discussed, start a new thread on it.
But no more here.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

gizmo555

I've always wondered how these regulations work - there's no scientific way of identifying a particular breed, still less a cross breed, so how can the guards or dog wardens prove in a court of law that a given dog is, for example, a Rottweiler?

juniord

there used to be dog events in the field at the back of campions pub on the malahide road ,maybe ask if you could use there o/p

juniord

gizmo555 wrote: »

I've always wondered how these regulations work - there's no scientific way of identifying a particular breed, still less a cross breed, so how can the guards or dog wardens prove in a court of law that a given dog is, for example, a Rottweiler?

the opinion of the warden or garda will go a long way in court,

DBB

juniord wrote: »

the opinion of the warden or garda will go a long way in court,

Yes, this is pretty much how it works in Ireland. If they're in any doubt they can recruit the services of an expert witness, someone who would be considered to have expertise in dog breeds, such as a breeder, or a vet.
It's all very well having the warden calling it, until you come across a warden who doesn't know the difference between a Husky and an Akita. Not looking at anyone in particular in Clare. No, not me. :rolleyes:

juniord

i read of a case in england where a dog was impounded as APBT type by the police , the owner brought pedigree papers for a staffordshire to court with a letter from the breeder stating they were for the dog , the owner lost the case and the dog was PTS

mosi

juniord wrote: »

i read of a case in england where a dog was impounded as APBT type by the police , the owner brought pedigree papers for a staffordshire to court with a letter from the breeder stating they were for the dog , the owner lost the case and the dog was PTS

That reminds me of a case I read of in the UK where two dogs were seized and one was deemed to be "of type" and the other wasn't...they were both from the same litter!

DBB

juniord wrote: »

i read of a case in england where a dog was impounded as APBT type by the police , the owner brought pedigree papers for a staffordshire to court with a letter from the breeder stating they were for the dog , the owner lost the case and the dog was PTS

In the UK, they have a list of morphometric measurements by which they establish if a dog is "of type"... that is, they take a number of measurements of girth, height, length etc. If the dog conforms to these measurements, and I assume looks "of type" too, then the dog may be deemed illegal. I find it hard to believe that a Staffie would conform anywhere close to the measurements they use for "of type" dogs, so one would have to question the real back-story behind whatever it is you read. There is usually more than meets the eye going on in cases like this.
In addition to that, if the dog was PTS, then there was almost certainly something else going on in this case. There seems to be a misinterpretation here of what the law in the UK allows regarding dogs "of type".
An owner of a dog "of type" can apply to the courts to have their dog added to the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED). This exempts banned dogs from automatic PTS, as long as the owners can show that the dog is likely not to be a danger (they must get an assessment carried out by a certified behaviourist to show this), and they must agree to carry out a number of procedures, for example, their dog must be neutered and chipped, must be muzzled and on lead at all times in a public place, must be insured against 3rd party liability, and must be kept in a properly enclosed premises/garden.
If an "of type" dog is PTS it usually means one of a few things:
1. It means the owner didn't bother their arse (or perhaps couldn't afford) to get their dog exempted via the IED
2. It means the dog has been involved in an incident which required its seizure, no matter what breed it happened to be.

ferretone

That's an excellent statement of the situation there, DBB. Anyone else agree that this post should be stickied, as this is something that doeas and will come up again and again? DBB, I would love to hear your opinion on the anti-BSL campaign that is going on over here right now.

I love it, of course, and especially love that Andreac is involved, but can't help feeling that the whole thing has the pretty naivete of a guy who has just not yet been worn down by the tyranny that this pervasive view seems to have gained within so many of the levels of our public service. And as for the government itself, well their response to him speaks of surprise that this topic ever was mentioned again, firstly, and secondly, determination that it would never be discussed again, as it was so very unimportant to them.

I'd love if this issue could be revisited, revised and revoked, but looking at what we have for government, at every level, I sadly do not think this will ever happen

Bullseye1

Has the OP located a suitable location to walk their RBLs off leash? I had not read?