Dogs on Beaches

Specialun

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

The dog owners are being asked not to bring their dogs to the beach between certain hours at a certain time of the year when there will be a lot of people using the beach.
They are not being banned from the beach themselves.

The fact that they live near the beach and/or use it all year around does not mean they can ruin it for others during the Summer season. in fact it's quite a selfish attitude. It's just a few weeks of the year that they can't bring their dogs down 24/7. Is that really such a big ask? Every one owns the beaches, not just the dog owners,

Is not selfish for non dog owners to go "when we want it you can get lost. But when we dont you can come back and play"

wexie

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

Why should a supermarket not sell me a bottle of wine at 11pm?

seamus wrote: »

Good fncking question.

Wouldn't mind an explanation for that one myself to be honest.

jimgoose

Dog owners need to master the Ninjitsu handed down by generations of East Limerick hill-farmers for nearly a thousand years. This involves a pair of size 12 engineer's boots with more steel in them than the Forth Bridge, and the canine-soothing mantra "GWINTABEDFUCKENCUNTOVVAFUCKENDAG!!!".

https://www.galwaycity.ie/dogs

'As of August 1st 2008, dogs are not permitted on Galway City beaches or their waters between the hours of 9 am and 8 pm during the months of May, June, July, August and September.
Before 9 am and after 8 pm during May to September, dogs are permitted on the beach provided they are on a leash and are not causing danger or nuisance. This bye-law relates solely to the Galway City beaches of Salthill, Grattan, Ballyloughane and Silverstrand and to their waters; the Promenade is not affected by its introduction'

I was on Silverstrand Beach in Galway with a toddler recently early one morning but within the above hours. There were maybe twelve people on the beach including a younger couple with a big dog, an older woman with her grandson and a Jack Russel, a family with two small kids and a few other couples.

The couple with the bigger dog grabbed it and put it on a leash when they saw kids arriving onto the beach - sensible, considerate dog owners.

Granny's Jack Russel was nosing around us and our toddler about 50 metres away from her - an idiot and why restrictive laws are passed.
She recognised that the dog was a nuisance as she called over and said it was harmless. Our two-year old was terrified but according to some above that is our problem and not grannies.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

seamus wrote: »

Why are they banned though?
Good fncking question.
Because people are trying to sleep.
Because private vehicles carrying a small number of passengers cause congestion where large vehicles carrying lots of passengers ease it.

Logic. It's not difficult.

And it's not difficult to understand that dogs and crowds don't always mix well - particularly where there will be a lot of small children around, people trying to eat picnics, people trying to play with beach balls, people simply trying to lie in the sun without a dog digging away at sand beside him or whatever.

Local authorities don't issue bans lightly. An awful lot of people don't want dogs wandering around the beach when they're trying to enjoy a day out, anymore than they want them running around a public playground or whatever. I'm sure the ban was carefully considered and well lobbied for.

Why can't dog owners just respect it even if they don't agree with it?

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

...that is our problem and not grannies.

It would be grannie's problem if she had to dig the little bastard out of the sand before it suffocated. Just sayin', like...

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Specialun wrote: »

Is not selfish for non dog owners to go "when we want it you can get lost. But when we dont you can come back and play"

It is not selfish to say that for most of the year dogs can use the beach, but for a few weeks when there will be a lot of members of the public, most who pay or have paid through taxes for the upkeep of the beach, exercising their right to use it, dogs should be off the beach between certain hours.

It's called compromise.

Cocobeans101

So the dog’s major crime was “was nosing around us”. Do you think when the Granny said it was harmless you could have tried introducing your child to the dog instead perpetuating a ridiculous fear of a tiny dog.

jimgoose

Specialun wrote: »

Is not selfish for non dog owners to go "when we want it you can get lost. But when we dont you can come back and play"

People want to enjoy the beach when they want to enjoy the beach. A dog is a dog, is a dog, and does not get a say in the matter.

jimgoose

Cocobeans101 wrote: »

So the dog’s major crime was “was nosing around us”. Do you think when the Granny said it was harmless you could have tried introducing your child to the dog instead perpetuating a ridiculous fear of a tiny dog.

A Jack Russell can destroy a small child like an angle-grinder, like most terrier breeds they are proud and can be aggressive to the point of vicious. The point is people do not want to have grannie's dog imposed upon them at the beach, or anywhere else. To grannie I say, either control it, or take it away. Before it is controlled for you.

Specialun

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

It is not selfish to say that for most of the year dogs can use the beach, but for a few weeks when there will be a lot of members of the public, most who pay or have paid through taxes for the upkeep of the beach, exercising their right to use it, dogs should be off the beach between certain hours.

It's called compromise.

I'm not too sure you understand the word selfish.

Plus I dont know why bring taxes into it. Its completely irrevelent. Dog owners pay tax no?

seamus

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

And it's not difficult to understand that dogs and crowds don't always mix well - particularly where there will be a lot of small children around, people trying to eat picnics, people trying to play with beach balls, people simply trying to lie in the sun without a dog digging away at sand beside him or whatever.

I don't think you're getting the fact that even without a ban, this is not permitted. The law already requires that dog owners keep dogs under control. A ban adds nothing.

Local authorities don't issue bans lightly.
...
I'm sure the ban was carefully considered and well lobbied for.

:D:D:D:D

You should consider a career in stand-up.

wexie

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

And it's not difficult to understand that dogs and crowds don't always mix well - particularly where there will be a lot of small children around, people trying to eat picnics, people trying to play with beach balls, people simply trying to lie in the sun without a dog digging away at sand beside him or whatever.

None of which happen when a responsible dog owner brings their dog(s) to the beach....none

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

Local authorities don't issue bans lightly.

Yeah they do, because it's much easier and cheaper than policing the laws that are already there, so they introduce a blanket ban, which also isn't enforced and consequently ignored.

You honestly don't think there might be a more sensible solution?

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

, but for a few weeks when there will be a lot of members of the public, most who pay or have paid through taxes for the upkeep of the beach,

It is, of course, a well known fact that no dog owners in the history of the state have ever paid any taxes, ever!!!

:rolleyes:

Mutant z

Dogs are entitled to go for walks as well if they are on kept on their lease i don't see what the big deal is.

Specialun

jimgoose wrote: »

People want to enjoy the beach when they want to enjoy the beach. A dog is a dog, is a dog, and does not get a say in the matter.

A dog is a dog. Wow Fcuk me. Who would have thought it? doesnt the dog owner get to speak about it no?

wexie

Specialun wrote: »

A dog is a dog. Wow Fcuk me. Who would have thought it? doesnt the dog owner get to speak about it no?

Only if they pay taxes :rolleyes:

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Specialun wrote: »

I'm not too sure you understand the word selfish.

Plus I dont know why bring taxes into it. Its completely irrevelent. Dog owners pay tax no?

I totally understand the word selfish, thank you.

I am saying that the fact that a dog owner lives near a beach and uses it all year around, does not give him/her special rights to the beach over and above others, many of whom pay their taxes and therefore contribute to the upkeep of beaches.

If the authorities have decided, due to much lobbying from many people who have been annoyed, frightened or bothered by dogs on the beach, to ban them between certain hours for a couple of months a year, then it absolutely is selfish of some dog owners to simply ignore that rule and go ahead and bring their dog onto the beach. The fact that you 'use the beach all year' is irrelevant.

People who live and work in Dublin use Dublin Bus all year round. That doesn't mean they have more right to be on the 14A than someone who's up from Offaly for the day.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

wexie wrote: »

None of which happen when a responsible dog owner brings their dog(s) to the beach....none

Yeah they do, because it's much easier and cheaper than policing the laws that are already there, so they introduce a blanket ban, which also isn't enforced and consequently ignored.

You honestly don't think there might be a more sensible solution?



It is, of course, a well known fact that no dog owners in the history of the state have ever paid any taxes, ever!!!

:rolleyes:

Where did I say they haven't

Cocobeans101

Cocobeans101 wrote: »

So the dog’s major crime was “was nosing around us”. Do you think when the Granny said it was harmless you could have tried introducing your child to the dog instead perpetuating a ridiculous fear of a tiny dog.

My toddler is fine with dogs she knows, when introduced and under control and for example was looking at and talking about the other one on a leash.
Having something uninvited, uncontrolled and unwelcome stick its head into you is not an unreasonable thing to want to avoid.

Tilikum17

I live 10mins from the beach. Two dogs, one is a puppy. I started walking them down the beach the last few weeks (the times they’re allowed) as I want the puppy to get used to the water. I always pick up their poop.

It’s not the dogs that make the beaches look like a dump first in the mornings.

Ban dogs? The cheek of you.

lawred2

the dog ban will be a result of selfish humans not having their dogs on a leash and letting them do whatever they want

the mess will be a result of selfish subhumans who are incapable of functioning in a mature co-operative society

yet it's everyone else who has to bear the cost of such detestable scum

Specialun

Sandra Clever Schoolgirl wrote: »

I totally understand the word selfish, thank you.

I am saying that the fact that a dog owner lives near a beach and uses it all year around, does not give him/her special rights to the beach over and above others, many of whom pay their taxes and therefore contribute to the upkeep of beaches.

If the authorities have decided, due to much lobbying from many people who have been annoyed, frightened or bothered by dogs on the beach, to ban them between certain hours for a couple of months a year, then it absolutely is selfish of some dog owners to simply ignore that rule and go ahead and bring their dog onto the beach. The fact that you 'use the beach all year' is irrelevant.

People who live and work in Dublin use Dublin Bus all year round. That doesn't mean they have more right to be on the 14A than someone who's up from Offaly for the day.

Ok so saying you can only use xyz when it suits "me" isnt selfish? FFS

if you think there was a thought process behind the decision then you really dont understand the authorities. Seriously?? You must be trolling or nieve

Thirdly. WTF. Again a shocking comparison and I dont know what it brings to your arguement

BTW I dont think one person has said because they live near the beach it brings them more say. If anything your "rule" is saying the people who use the beach infrequently have more say than anyone.

jimgoose

Specialun wrote: »

A dog is a dog. Wow Fcuk me. Who would have thought it? doesnt the dog owner get to speak about it no?

A small minority of a small minority cause a disproportionately large problem and danger on beaches, and a blanket-ban which unfortunately affects every dog-owner is considerably cheaper and easier than seeking out and penalising those who don't control their animals properly. It's just a pity it isn't enforced.

wexie

Deleted User wrote: »

Having something uninvited, uncontrolled and unwelcome stick its head into you is not an unreasonable thing to want to avoid.

Believe it or not it's not something a lot of dog owners welcome either. But it's already against the law to have a dog not under effective control in a public space.

Closing the beach to all dogs because of irresponsible dog owners makes as much sense as closing to everybody because there were people causing trouble.

It just doesn't

wexie

jimgoose wrote: »

A small minority of a small minority cause a disproportionately large problem and danger on beaches, and a blanket-ban which unfortunately affects every dog-owner is considerably cheaper and easier than seeking out and penalising those who don't control their animals properly. It's just a pity it isn't enforced.

But that's kinda the point isn't it?

Nothing seems to work because it isn't enforced....so if you're going to enforce something it may as well be something that is fair and reasonable and doesn't penalize those people that aren't part of the problem?

jimgoose

wexie wrote: »

But that's kinda the point isn't it?

Nothing seems to work because it isn't enforced....so if you're going to enforce something it may as well be something that is fair and reasonable and doesn't penalize those people that aren't part of the problem?

In theory, I agree completely. In practice, a blanket ban is just easier and cheaper.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Specialun wrote: »

Ok so saying you can only use xyz when it suits "me" isnt selfish? FFS

if you think there was a thought process behind the decision then you really dont understand the authorities. Seriously?? You must be trolling or nieve

Thirdly. WTF. Again a shocking comparison and I dont know what it brings to your arguement

BTW I dont think one person has said because they live near the beach it brings them more say. If anything your "rule" is saying the people who use the beach infrequently have more say than anyone.

Why are your posts so rude? I am neither naive nor lacking in understanding of basic vocabulary. You, however, could perhaps work on your rather confrontational posting style.

I am not saying that people who use the beach more frequently have more say. I am saying that it is quite logical that at a time of year when there is a particular demand for the beach the rules might need to change temporarily. But some posters seem to feel that because some dog owners use the beach all year round, it is unfair to curtail their dog's use of it during certain times of the year.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

wexie wrote: »

Believe it or not it's not something a lot of dog owners welcome either. But it's already against the law to have a dog not under effective control in a public space.

Closing the beach to all dogs because of irresponsible dog owners makes as much sense as closing to everybody because there were people causing trouble.

It just doesn't

But that's how these things tend to work. A lot of shops prevent more than one or two kids in school uniform from being in there at the same time. The others have to queue. I'm sure most of them just want to go in and buy their lunch time sandwich and get out again. But there's an annoying and rude minority who will trick act, annoy other customers and shop lift. As it's impossible to pick out which ones, the solution is to penalise all school kids.
Not totally fair, but what else can they do?

Kivaro

Here's my experience with the sizeable amount of dogs at a busy beach last week.
About 10% of the dogs were kept under control and I spotted one woman using a plastic bag to pick up after her large dog made a deposit at the water's edge. Fair play to her I thought. The remaining 90% of the dogs were allowed to run around, jump up on people, crap anywhere they wanted, and the worst of all were the dogs going from unoccupied beach towels/bags and pee-ing on them to mark their territory. I was able to kick sand at one dog who lifted the leg on my stuff and got a resulting evil eye(s) from the large group of people who owned the dog. I also saw a pit-pull in and out of the water (without a lead), which could have resulted in a dangerous situation.

This was not a beach full of undesirable or anti-social people, but I guess by dog owners allowing their dogs to behave in that manner, they were in fact anti-social.

Solution: Have beaches out of bounds for dogs during certain months e.g. June to September (like they do in other civilised countries), and have at least one dog friendly beach in coastal counties.

wexie

jimgoose wrote: »

In theory, I agree completely. In practice, a blanket ban is just easier and cheaper.

But in practice (clearly) that doesn't work either.

I'm usually pretty law abiding but these things really get on my tits. Cause it's the easy and lazy way out of a problem which in the end boils down to only affecting those people it was never really intended for.

Responsible dog owners already didn't cause problems on the beaches and irresponsible ones still do.