Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bylaws re dogs - is this correct?

  • 21-03-2014 4:45pm
    #1
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭


    Reading a leaflet here about dog ownership etc (freebie in pet shop) and it says "you can be prosecuted if your dog is found to be dangerously out of control in a public place" which is not news to me but then it goes on to say, "a member of the public only needs to feel worried by the presence of your dog for you to be prosecuted" - tf? So if a dog is on a lead and minding his or her own business and some fragile flake decides he looks big and scary and starts to feel worried - the owner can be prosecuted? :confused:

    It also says "anyone found to be mistreating or causing suffering to an animal can be fined and prevented from keeping an animal, or even jailed" - chance'd be a fuucking fine thing...


Comments

  • #2
    mosi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 620 ✭✭✭mosi


    That sounds like the leaflet may be based on UK laws

    https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview


  • #3
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    mosi wrote: »
    That sounds like the leaflet may be based on UK laws

    https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

    Ah yes, its Royal Canin. Duh. Sorry!

    Just had a look at that link. It does seem to allow for a remarkable level of subjectivity in this regard. If someone else thinks or someone else feels. Surely the test should be a more objective one: if a reasonable person might think/feel?


  • #4
    anniehoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭anniehoo


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    "a member of the public only needs to feel worried by the presence of your dog for you to be prosecuted"

    I find this very hard to believe unless it's referring to RBs.
    wrote:
    It also says "anyone found to be mistreating or causing suffering to an animal can be fined and prevented from keeping an animal, or even jailed" - chance'd be a fuucking fine thing...
    It does state in the new Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013
    wrote:
    (4) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of animal health and welfare regulations which is stated in the regulations to be a penal provision—

    (a) to which this paragraph applies, commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine, or

    (b) to which this paragraph applies or is an instrument to which section 75 refers, commits an offence and is liable—

    (i) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both, or

    (ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or to both.

    It seems Judges have new powers of authority since this new Act has been introduced, but again like many things in this country....I'll believe it when I see it. :rolleyes:


  • #5
    gimmick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,296 ✭✭✭✭gimmick


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Reading a leaflet here about dog ownership etc (freebie in pet shop) and it says "you can be prosecuted if your dog is found to be dangerously out of control in a public place" which is not news to me but then it goes on to say, "a member of the public only needs to feel worried by the presence of your dog for you to be prosecuted" - tf? So if a dog is on a lead and minding his or her own business and some fragile flake decides he looks big and scary and starts to feel worried - the owner can be prosecuted? :confused:

    It also says "anyone found to be mistreating or causing suffering to an animal can be fined and prevented from keeping an animal, or even jailed" - chance'd be a fuucking fine thing...

    Presumably that is off the lead as if you have you dog on a lead and mussled if an RB you are taking all the necessary precautions an owner can?


  • #6
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    anniehoo wrote: »
    I find this very hard to believe unless it's referring to RBs.


    It does state in the new Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013


    It seems Judges have new powers of authority since this new Act has been introduced, but again like many things in this country....I'll believe it when I see it. :rolleyes:


    Exactly. No point having laws if they are not enforced. I suspect we will be waiting a while to see any changes.

    The issue I have with the subjectivity is there is so much bias towards bigger dogs. I see it even with other dog owners in the park who are biased. This kind of , "Oh God he's going ot eat my dog" mentality. As an owner of a fiesty and behaviourally "challenged" smallie, I know its usually the other way around. My dog can be more of a menace than a big dopey boxer or retriever looping around the place :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    mosi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 620 ✭✭✭mosi


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Ah yes, its Royal Canin. Duh. Sorry!

    Just had a look at that link. It does seem to allow for a remarkable level of subjectivity in this regard. If someone else thinks or someone else feels. Surely the test should be a more objective one: if a reasonable person might think/feel?

    I remember some time ago that issue came up during the debate over there about extending the laws to private property, whereby someone would be liable for prosecution if their dog frightened someone who came onto their property such as a child retrieving a ball. I'm not sure what the latest is on that but it could certainly leave people open to all sorts of prosecution.


Advertisement