Greyhounds, new restricted breed?

VonVix

Is this new or an error?

I just received a letter for dog licence renewal, and on the back under "LEASHES" it says as follows...

(b) Certain Breeds must always be leashed e.g. Greyhound, Doberman, German Shepherd, Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, etc. These dogs should also be muzzled and accompanied by a person over the age of 16 years when in a public place.

Copied it word for word. So are Greyhounds now on the RB list?

Dyr

FWIR its illegal to "train" a greyhound in a public place. Could be the corpo are interpreting that to mean the greyhounds are effectively a restricted breed.

TG1

I could be wrong but as far as I'm aware greyhounds have been required to be leashes and muzzled in a public place for a long time now.

They're not on the restricted breed list as far as I know, it's a seperate thing but it's been around a good few years I think!

andreac

Yes they are always supposed to be muzzled when in public, its not a new thing, but they don't come in the same category as the restricted breeds as such.

VonVix

Never knew that! If they're a cross of a Greyhound do the same laws apply, such as lurchers? Also, anyone got an official link on what the laws are regarding Greyhounds?

TG1

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec10

The control of dogs act is where the leashed in public bit is mentioned, but it doesn't say anything about crosses so I'm not sure about that one!

Dyr

VonVix wrote: »

Never knew that! If they're a cross of a Greyhound do the same laws apply, such as lurchers? Also, anyone got an official link on what the laws are regarding Greyhounds?

A friend of mine who owned a lurcher had a guard give him grief over having it off lead, seemed he was applying that law to anything greyhoundish

deandean

I've only ever seen a greyhound walked on a lead. Good luck running after him!

But they seem to be incredibly quiet dogs - I've never had as much as a growl from one while out walking my pooch.

boomerang

I know greyhounds have to be leashed in public but I've never heard of them having to be muzzled also.

DBB

boomerang wrote: »

I know greyhounds have to be leashed in public but I've never heard of them having to be muzzled also.

You're right boomerang, they're not required to be muzzled. They need to be on lead, and no more than 4 dogs per handler. There is no age restriction for the handler as there is with RB legislation.
The Greyhound legislation is older than the RB legislation!
Whilst the RB legislation specifically applies to the listed breeds and their crosses and strains, the Greyhound legislation refers to greyhounds, whippets, and any crosses or strains of these two breeds.

VonVix

The form was weirdly worded so, the way it's written makes Greyhounds look one of the same and that they should be muzzled, too. I don't know how I ever missed the part about Greyhounds and their own rules!

boomerang

When I was growing up I assumed greyhounds were somehow not like other dogs, and that they were vicious - all because I only ever saw them muzzled, being briskly walked in small groups by someone grim-faced!

Just goes to show the influence muzzling has on our perceptions. It's such a shame it's the law for restricted breeds.

-- Now the soppy owner of one soft-as-putty greyhound :P

muddypaws

VonVix wrote: »

The form was weirdly worded so, the way it's written makes Greyhounds look one of the same and that they should be muzzled, too. I don't know how I ever missed the part about Greyhounds and their own rules!

Oh, did you not know, greyhounds aren't dogs according to Irish law, they are a unique species. So many welfare laws etc that are now coming in for dogs don't include greyhounds, they can still be abused with impunity.

Inexile

VonVix wrote: »

The form was weirdly worded so, the way it's written makes Greyhounds look one of the same and that they should be muzzled, too. I don't know how I ever missed the part about Greyhounds and their own rules!

Even to use the words etc after a list of dog breeds makes no sense.

For those interested here are the relevant extracts from the Control of Dogs Act 1986
10.—(1) A person shall not permit a greyhound to be in any public place unless such greyhound is being led by means of a sufficiently strong chain or leash.
(2) A person shall not lead or cause or permit to be led by any one person more than four greyhounds at a time in any public place.

and the interpretation at the begging of the act states that "greyhound” includes any whippet and any strain or cross of greyhound or whippet;

griffdaddy

Sorry for resurrecting a zombie thread, but are dogs with Greyhound lineage still considered restricted? I can't figure out if the Control of Dogs Act 1998 revokes previous regulations around dog types when it introduces the new list.

DBB

griffdaddy wrote: »

Sorry for resurrecting a zombie thread, but are dogs with Greyhound lineage still considered restricted? I can't figure out if the Control of Dogs Act 1998 revokes previous regulations around dog types when it introduces the new list.

No, it only revokes the Statutory Instruments (bye-laws) listed in Schedule 1 of the Control of Dogs Regulations 1998.
If you scroll down towards the bottom of the regs, you'll see Schedule 1, followed by the list of repealed SIs, none of which refer to any Section in the original Act of 1986.
In other words, the entire Act of 1986 is still in force, including the Section relating to control of greyhound/whippet/any crosses thereof. The SI of 1998 is essentially an add-on.

griffdaddy

DBB wrote: »

No, it only revokes the Statutory Instruments (bye-laws) listed in Schedule 1 of the Control of Dogs Regulations 1998.
If you scroll down towards the bottom of the regs, you'll see Schedule 1, followed by the list of repealed SIs, none of which refer to any Section in the original Act of 1986.
In other words, the entire Act of 1986 is still in force, including the Section relating to control of greyhound/whippet/any crosses thereof. The SI of 1998 is essentially an add-on.

Ah ok, thanks. I was confused about the appearance of the forms directly below the 'sections revoked' part of the 98 act. For what it's worth I'd already emailed the Department of Rural and Community Development asking for clarification and suggesting that they should revoke section 10 of the 86 act

DBB

griffdaddy wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks. I was confused about the appearance of the forms directly below the 'sections revoked' part of the 98 act. For what it's worth I'd already emailed the Department of Rural and Community Development asking for clarification and suggesting that they should revoke section 10 of the 86 act

You may have missed a window of opportunity to have your say there The dept had a public consultation on whether to repeal or redraft the dog control laws, but submissions closed some time ago... September maybe?
Anyway... as lovely as it'd be for that to happen, and the lobby in support of redrafting is strong, I'm not sure it's as strong as the won't-somebody-think-of-the-children lobby, nor the tendency to resist legislative change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that breed specific legislation simply doesn't work.

griffdaddy

Thanks for the info! Looks like my next best option is to get some kind of Labrador conversion bodykit for my Lurcher :-)

puppieperson1

pity they wouldnt restrict the ****ers who breed them & just kill them or export them to be eaten and beaten in China that would be better use of legislation

this country is just like china with its animal welfare laws there are none and then no one to enforce the ones they have i never owned a muzzle for my grey hound they can just go **** themselves.

DBB

There is nothing in Irish legislation that ordinarily compels greyhound owners to have muzzled on their dogs.
Also, we have a reasonably new Animal Welfare Act under which quite a few prosecutions have been taken, resulting in, for example, puppy farms being shut down and owners prosecuted/jailed, certain "rescues" being shut down and owners prosecuted, almost weekly seizure of puppies and dogs that are being illegally transported... things aren't perfect, but let's just get our facts straight before going on the attack!

puppieperson1

SORRY I just get very upset as in general this country is so cruel to animals and a few recent cases into rescues have made me want to explode will take the xanax !!

griffdaddy

I've been told that if the sighthound half of a lurcher is a Saluki or something similarly exotic (as opposed to a greyhound or whippet) that the legislation doesn't apply. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Choc Chip

griffdaddy wrote: »

I've been told that if the sighthound half of a lurcher is a Saluki or something similarly exotic (as opposed to a greyhound or whippet) that the legislation doesn't apply. Does anyone know if this is the case?

That would make sense. Control of Dogs act defines a greyhound as, "
“greyhound” includes any whippet and any strain or cross of greyhound or whippet;"

I don't know what success you'd have in proving that there was no greyhound in a lurcher though, if you met an awkward warden.

griffdaddy

Thanks, I would've thought the burden of proof would be on them. Probably better not to risk having the dog seized in any case.