Irish Dogs for the disabled response to using RBL dogs.

DBB

Whispered wrote: »

Out of interest DBB, when you say you haven't seen "them" put together an argument, who do you mean, individuals or anti-bsl groups?

Probably a bit of both Whispered. I know absolutely that not everyone on board anti-BSL campaigns is how I describe, and I don't want to give that impression. The unfortunate thing is, though, that it's the screechy, emotive people that shout the loudest, and get the sensible campaigners a bad name too. I know as soon as I see most of the stuff coming out of anti-BSL campaigns, I cringe, and stop reading.

Bullseye1

DBB wrote: »

What? I posted in response to your off-topic posting in another thread about what a "disgrace" the IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs are. A discussion ensued which did not belong in that thread, and so all posts that related to charities using RBs were moved over to this current thread, which you started by posting a facebook comment.
Let me make it abundantly clear that there was no cutting and pasting for any "context". It is absolutely standard to split off-topic posts away from a thread.



That's not quite true though. The first post in this thread, which was originally over in the other thread, quite clearly states:


Whilst you have apologised about your IGDA comment, you are using one incident of one dog (which, if your friend wanted to bring her dog into hospitals to meet people, would have had to wear a muzzle, and be on-lead at all times... I'm guessing that's why Irish Therapy Dogs do not invite RBs to volunteer for them), to make it sound as if Irish Therapy Dogs have made some public statement? Not fair.



I'm sorry that you see what I posted as ranting. You appear to me to be saying that an organisation is wrong to turn down RBs, just because they are RBs, yes? My "ranting" was merely to clarify to you that if you think this is really the case, then not only should various charities be accused of discriminating against RBs, so should the Guards, Customs etc. To me at least, you're not taking into any account that most RB breeds are patently unsuitable for the sort of work that all of these organisations require them for, as are many non-RB breeds. As I read it, you seem to think that
these organisations should employ RBs, just for the sake of employing an RB because it's a "disgrace" if they don't!
Re dragging the thread off-topic, I will remind you that you initiated the off-topic posting, and within a very short space of time, and some hours ago, I moved all of these comments from that thread to a thread of their own.



Bullseye, you started the discussion about what a "disgrace" various charitable organisations are for not considering the use of RBs (for jobs they're not suitable for). You posted a Facebook post, from a campaign organisation, which disses a charity using 2nd-hand information. You called this and another charity a "disgrace".
By posting that facebook post here, and commenting in agreement with it, you can only be seen to be supporting that campaign.
You also have started threads, and contributed liberally to anti-BSL threads on this forum. So, please don't try to make out that you don't campaign in any way for the removal of BSL.

I didn't suggest that you start a boycott, anywhere: you're the one who said you wouldn't be donating to IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs again. I didn't suggest that you start a campaign against other organisations either. I asked you if you planned to, given your outrage and assistance at campaigning against the Dogs for the Disabled on this very forum, in this very thread. If you're going to be fair about it, don't just give out about a couple of charities that can't use RBs, give out about every organisation that discriminates against them, because there are plenty of them out there!

I think it would be very interesting to know, going back to that facebook post you quoted, if the answer "No we don't use any of these breeds and we won't be ever" (assuming that this is a faithful recording of what they actually said), was made in reply to the question "Hi Dogs for the Disabled! Do you use RBs? If not, do you ever plan to?" A bit of context would be nice, rather than it coming across as trying to make a comment fit into an agenda.

I am in support of the removal of the BSL but am unable to campaign for its removal here per the forum charter . I started a thread which was promptly closed. I accepted the decision of the forum although it's extremely disappointing stance it has taken . If I have broken the charter I should have been warned or banned, neither has happened. I certainly have not shoved my views down anyone's throat. I don't see the point in arguing with someone who has polar views on the issue of BSL.

When your an owner of a RB I don't see the problem with being passionate about the campaign when some of the organisations being discussed here including the Kennel Club and Vets association where involved in discussions with government.

Here is a well informed and thought out explanation why the law should be appealed and why BSL is wrong:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tQl2euz6ZM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8tQl2euz6ZM

Phil. Hogan response to the campaign:
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-01-15a.1459

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I am in support of the removal of the BSL but am unable to campaign for its removal here per the forum charter . I started a thread which was promptly closed. I accepted the decision of the forum although it's extremely disappointing stance it has taken

That is a low blow Bullseye. For starters, it is against the charter to post ANY petitions on this forum. If you'd rather we allowed every petition that's posted here every day, then prepare yourself to wade through post after post after post asking for people to sign petitions, or sign up to some campaign or other. This is NOTHING to do with anti-BSL, your thread would have been taken down whether it was to campaign against anti-BSL, tail-docking, circumcision of children, you name it... if it's a petition, it's coming down.
Besides, there are plenty of comments and threads in this forum that chat freely about the anti-BSL legislation. Lots and lots and lots of them. It's perfectly okay, and clearly allowed, for anyone to discuss the issue. It's not okay to try to shove petitions at people, or soapbox though. So, your comments are very unfair and unfounded.

Not only that, after your thread was taken down, I personally PM'd you (on 24/11/13, if you want to check) to let you know that you can, instead, place a link to your campaign in your signature. That way, your campaign gets aired no matter what forum you post in, every time you post for as long as you choose to keep that link in your signature. So don't come on here and act the victim: you were given a perfectly acceptable and better way to keep your campaign alive, without breaking the rules.
I'm sure you'd agree it would not be fair to allow you break the rules whilst nobody else can.

If I have broken the charter I should have been warned or banned, neither has happened.

As above, I personally PM'd you at the time to explain to you why your petition thread had to come down. Any of the mods could have warned you on-thread... would you have preferred that? Seriously Bullseye, we try to be fair with the people who post here, as long as they are fair too. I think a civil and helpful PM was a far nicer option in this case, do you not agree? Or am I being inconvenient now by pointing out what actually happened?

I don't see the point in arguing with someone who has polar views on the issue of BSL.

Do not misquote me Bullseye, because misquoting people just weakens your argument, a common malaise with the anti-BSL lobby. I do NOT have polar views on the issue of BSL, you will find nothing, anywhere on this forum to back up that comment, which I take deep offence to.
What I do have polar issue on is the way many anti-BSL lobbyists choose bring their arguments to those who can do something about it. There is a BIG difference. I would thank you to never make such assumptions about me again on this forum, unless you can find some good evidence to support such assumptions.

When your an owner of a RB I don't see the problem with being passionate about the campaign when some of the organisations being discussed here including the Kennel Club and Vets association where involved in discussions with government.

I am the owner of an RB, not my first one either. I work with RBs. The dogs I train have, and will all be recruited from rescues, all RBs, all unwanted. I have no problem with anyone being passionate. But I do have a problem with anti-BSL people using a 2nd-hand quote to tarnish a fantastic charity in order to further their own ends. I also take issue with you, an anti-BSL campaigner, purporting with not a shred of evidence that someone like me has "polar views on BSL". It just makes your arguments sound emotive, shrill, and based entirely on telling everyone else how "disgraceful" they are, even if they aren't. If the above are examples of how you're (as an anti-BSL campaigner) prepared to behave, you as a group have no right to be given a hearing at government level. You've got to have your act together before you look for a hearing. Until as a group, the anti-BSL lobby can make representations that don't make them sound as if they're off their rockers, I won't be having them represent me as an RB owner.

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Here is a well informed and thought out explanation why the law should be appealed and why BSL is wrong:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tQl2euz6ZM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8tQl2euz6ZM

Very good piece from the RSPCA.
Perhaps you and the person responsible for the facebook comment you posted could take a leaf from his book.

Bullseye1

DBB where did I say you had polar views on the BSL? Or accused you of not being in favour of abolishing the law? Where?

I was referring to people in general, I see no point in engaging in debate when these people have their mind made up on the issue.

But you have made plenty of statements in this thread to convince me not to converse with you further as you have a talent for misinterpreting my posts. Especially nice touch to replace my original first post with another post in a completely different thread which had already gone way off topic and does not reflect the original OPs question.


You also have a talent for talking down to people, an accusation you have levelled at some anti-BSL campaigners.

TG1

I hate to see threads like this as these dogs make such a difference to peoples lives, its seems a shame to bring any negative publicity to organisations that train them...

I do not own a restricted breed dog, nor have I ever. I've only had close contact with three breeds on the list and loved all three breeds, and I absolutely agree that the three breeds I know are amazing, loving dogs.

However in the context of using them as assistance dogs, there is one glaring obstacle, as mentioned by DBB already:

DBB wrote: »

The problem here is that if the dogs are to be used as therapy dogs going into hospitals, hospices etc, they must be geared up with their muzzles on. Until or unless the legislation changes (and dogs used for guidance are exempt.... and specifically guide dogs, no other types of therapy dogs are included in the legislation), I cannot see any organisation involved in dogs used for visiting people, using RBs.

whether you agree with the law or not (I don't, for the record!), it is still the law. Any charitable organisation in the public eye will have to comply with legislation, and legislation states these dogs must be muzzled in public (possibly limiting their usefulness in any situation outside of the home), and must be controlled by a person over 16 (limiting who they could be assigned to).

As current legislation states, the rules on muzzling and leashing do not apply to dogs used by the Gardaí, the Dublin Harbour Police, State Airport Police and bona fide rescue teams in rescue operations. The rules on muzzling do not apply to guide dogs for the blind.

Assistance dogs, unfortunately, are not exempt under current law.Why would any organisation invest in training up a dog that will not be able to complete its duties as an assistance dog as completely as one that could, regardless of the reasoning?

I do think the quote was unfortunately phrased, and the answer could have been given a bit more context, but no matter how strongly people feel about BSL, I think taking away from the amazing work this charity does to improve peoples lives may not be the best way to express those feelings!

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

DBB where did I say you had polar views on the BSL? Or accused you of not being in favour of abolishing the law? Where?

If you didn't mean to direct that comment at me, then I apologise for misconstruing you. But it's easy for me to interpret it as a comment directed at me, as have other posters who have PM'd me about it. After all, your comment came immediately after your criticism of what I did with your anti-BSL petition thread.

But you have made plenty of statements in this thread to convince me not to converse with you further as you have a talent for misinterpreting my posts.

You have done little to convince me that I have misinterpreted anything else you said. I think I've just made you feel uncomfortable because I have called you on a lot of allegations you've made, pretty much all of them mistaken.

Especially nice touch to replace my original first post with another post in a completely different thread which had already gone way off topic and does not reflect the original OPs question.

For goodness' sake Bullseye, it is not any sort of "nice touch". This is not the conspiracy forum!
You posted in another thread about what a "disgrace" IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs were. That thread is about where somebody might be able to walk RBs off-lead, nothing to do with RBs not being used for charities.
You then started a new thread, by posting the facebook post about what a "disgrace" Dogs for the Disabled are.
So, I'm sure you'll agree, you posted in one thread about the "disgrace" of it all, it was off-topic, and then you started a new thread on the same topic.
In relation to your first post in the original thread, I started to question you, because you had provided nothing, zilch, to back up what you said about IGDA nor Irish Therapy Dogs.
A conversation ensued which was bringing that other thread off-topic.
As any mod would do, I split those off-topic posts away from the thread, and placed them into this one.
When a mod does this, the posts appear according to the time at which they were posted.
That meant that your first (off-topic) post on the other thread appeared before the first post in this thread.
As this did not detract in any way from this thread, I left as was.
I edited nothing, I re-arranged nothing, I simply moved a lot of off-topic posts away from where they did not belong.
This can all be corroborated by the other mods, who can see what was moved where, and if any editing was done to any posts.
So please, I'll ask you again, quit the OUTRAGE! It is completely unnecessary.

You also have a talent for talking down to people, an accusation you have levelled at some anti-BSL campaigners.

Oh dear Bullseye, you finally had to resort to personal jibes in an attempt to salvage yourself. You should do that when you meet with Minister Hogan, I'm sure he'll change his stance then!
If you think I talk down to people, please, please bring your complaints to the Category Mods via PM, or to the Help Desk thread. I'm sure they'd be pleased to help you with your concerns, and to take the necessary actions against me if they see fit.

Bullseye1

Screen grab is a factual response to a question from the disability dogs (as per title thread). "we don't use any of these dogs and we never will".

The statement from the Therapy dogs that the Rhodesian Ridgeback is dangerousis information from someone I trust.

It shows a clear bias when it would have been simply better to state "Unfortunately as the law currently stands it is not possible to use any of these wonderful breeds in our program".

I've offered to contact that person and you can hear it from the horses mouth.

I've provided the information. You just chose not to believe it and that's your prerogative.

I apologised for mixing up the Guide dogs with Disability Dogs associations. But I'm sure you will bring it up again. You haven't called me out on anything LOL but continue to believe that if it makes it better.

I've no interest in contacting the admin on the matter. It's two adults having a conversation we are not back at school .

But so drop the condescending tone of your posts. It's cringeworthy.

BTW if that was a personal jibe your an expert at it.
.

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Screen grab is a factual response to a question from the disability dogs (as per title thread). "we don't use any of these dogs and we never will".

No, we didn't see the question. We don't know if the answer is faithfully recorded. And we don't know who replied on behalf of the Dogs for the Disabled. So, I'm afraid using this as a stick to beat Dogs for the Disabled is treading on seriously soft ground.
Quite apart from the fact, as has already been pointed out more than once, what sort of person would even think about asking a charity that question in the first place, with a view to using their answer to gain publicity for their own campaign? Disgraceful behaviour. I certainly would not support any lobby-group that would stoop to such behaviour.

The statement from the Therapy dogs that the Rhodesian Ridgeback is dangerousis information from someone I trust.

Hearsay.
Without proof, it doesn't count, I'm afraid.
Have you given any consideration at all as to why Irish Therapy Dogs might not want to use RBs in this country? Do you think it's appropriate for a muzzled dog to be brought into sick people in a hospital? Or for them to give dogs to children who, if they brought them for a walk, would be breaking the law?

"Unfortunately as the law currently stands it is not possible to use any of these wonderful breeds in our program".

Perhaps you should offer to be their spokesperson. They're very short on volunteers.

I've offered to contact that person and you can hear it from the horses mouth.

What difference does it make? I don't dispute the fact that your friend was told what she was told. I dispute with you that you would use one incident of a dog which cannot be used by that charity, to criticise that charity for not using that dog. Outrageous.

I've provided the information. You just chose not to believe it and that's your prerogative.

You expect me to believe what you say when you can provide nothing other than prejudiced agenda-fulfilling posts from facebook, or a comment some mate of yours made? Jeez Bullseye, I would have thought you'd know that sort of stuff won't wash with me, or most other people for that matter. You'll have to try harder than that.
I will remind you that you have come onto a public forum and criticised a number of animal charities for the sake of furthering the anti-BSL cause... this alone makes you very difficult indeed to take seriously.

I apologised for mixing up the Guide dogs with Disability Dogs associations. But I'm sure you will bring it up again. You haven't called me out on anything LOL but continue to believe that if it makes it better.

I've called you out on your criticism of excellent dog charities, who stand on the shoulders of giants compared to the behaviour of your facebook anti-BSL friend.
I called you on your criticism of the way your previous anti-BSL thread was deleted.
I called you out on the fact that you tried to make out that we, as forum mods, attempted to stifle your opinion, or try to stifle anti-BSL discussion.

I'll not comment on the rest of your post, because it is below contempt. Adults, indeed. You will notice that I did not make any personal jibes at you. I simply questioned what you said, much of which was biased and wrong. If you have to stoop to personal jibes, you've weakened your credibility so badly.

Bullseye1

DBB wrote: »

No, we didn't see the question. We don't know if the answer is faithfully recorded. And we don't know who replied on behalf of the Dogs for the Disabled. So, I'm afraid using this as a stick to beat Dogs for the Disabled is treading on seriously soft ground.
Quite apart from the fact, as has already been pointed out more than once, what sort of person would even think about asking a charity that question in the first place, with a view to using their answer to gain publicity for their own campaign? Disgraceful behaviour. I certainly would not support any lobby-group that would stoop to such behaviour.

I assume he contacted them for an opinion on the BSL and whether they would support the abolition of the law. And got a response which was at best very poorly worded. I've asked him for the full transcript.

Hearsay.
Without proof, it doesn't count, I'm afraid.
Have you given any consideration at all as to why Irish Therapy Dogs might not want to use RBs in this country? Do you think it's appropriate for a muzzled dog to be brought into sick people in a hospital? Or for them to give dogs to children who, if they brought them for a walk, would be breaking the law?

As long as they were in control of the dogs (and not the kids) and the were muzzelled no laws would be broken. The words "dangerous" was used. I'm calling them out on that term. Nothing else.

Perhaps you should offer to be their spokesperson. They're very short on volunteers.

:rolleyes:

What difference does it make? I don't dispute the fact that your friend was told what she was told. I dispute with you that you would use one incident of a dog which cannot be used by that charity, to criticise that charity for not using that dog. Outrageous.

I am not critising them for not employing the dog in question just the language used "dangerous". Nothing outrageous about being angered by the language used by them.

You expect me to believe what you say when you can provide nothing other than prejudiced agenda-fulfilling posts from facebook, or a comment some mate of yours made? Jeez Bullseye, I would have thought you'd know that sort of stuff won't wash with me, or most other people for that matter. You'll have to try harder than that.
I will remind you that you have come onto a public forum and criticised a number of animal charities for the sake of furthering the anti-BSL cause... this alone makes you very difficult indeed to take seriously.

Sounds like you have a problem with the leader of the campaign and how its being run but have not offered any advice only criticism.

]I've called you out on your criticism of excellent dog charities, who stand on the shoulders of giants compared to the behaviour of your facebook anti-BSL friend.

I've critiqued the language employed by them much in the same way you have critiqued the BSL campaign. Sorry that you feel outraged that I am unhappy with "we will never use them" and "dangerous".

I called you out on the fact that you tried to make out that we, as forum mods, attempted to stifle your opinion, or try to stifle anti-BSL discussion.

I'm glad you called me out on my disappointment that such issues cannot be campaigned on here, an open forum.

Whispered

DBB wrote: »

Probably a bit of both Whispered. I know absolutely that not everyone on board anti-BSL campaigns is how I describe, and I don't want to give that impression. The unfortunate thing is, though, that it's the screechy, emotive people that shout the loudest, and get the sensible campaigners a bad name too. I know as soon as I see most of the stuff coming out of anti-BSL campaigns, I cringe, and stop reading.

I think this is an issue with any type of campaign unfortunately. I cringe when I hear anything from the likes of peta because I disagree with their emotional terrorism and with their very hard-line stance on pets. Those who shout the loudest are the ones who get heard.

As a person who knows her way around a dog, what would you like to see, both from a campaign point of view and BSL? What do you think it a likely middle ground for pro and anti BSL? (different topic maybe?)

DBB

Whispered wrote: »

As a person who knows her way around a dog, what would you like to see, both from a campaign point of view and BSL? What do you think it a likely middle ground for pro and anti BSL? (different topic maybe?)

I'd be more than happy to discuss it all with you by PM or one of these days over a cup of tea , but given the likes of this thread as an example, I think it'd do the topic a disservice to discuss it here any further, or on any forum where some anti-BSL supporters repeatedly demonstrate that they can't discuss it, or further the ideals of their campaign rationally and maturely.
Look forward to it!

I saw a great documentary about bull breeds and they mentioned how they were best for disabled people. Simply for their strength, stmaina, short hair and demeanor.

great documentary actually .....

http://vimeo.com/8087343


The unfortunate thing is they have such a bad name "thanks to the media" if one of these organizations were to start using them and just one thing went wrong. Jobs would be lost.

Hellrazer

Can we all calm it down a bit??Bullseye enough of the personal jibes at DBB.

By all means discuss the topic at hand but don't stoop to slagging each other off.