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

Dangerous Dogs Owners

Options
1697071727375»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Anyone whose main argument is "there's no such breed as a pitbull, so a ban won't work" isn't arguing for enforcement though. Because if the problem is that there's no such breed, then the present law on restricted breeds can't work either. Which means that in their view it's not a problem of applying the current law, and moreover that any law that tries to act preventively is pretty much doomed to fail.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,005 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    I didn't say it was. It's an argument that's been made on here more than once though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,594 ✭✭✭newport2


    I think that argument can be applied to any law though. Enforcement is an issue generally in this country.

    However, I think law does act as a deterrent. If something is made illegal, whether enforced or not, less people will do it. Very few people picked up dog poo before it became illegal not to do so. Now most do, in spite of little enforcement. A minority will always ignore the law and do what suits them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Another option is legislation to hold owners of dogs directly responsible for the dogs actions. 

    I think this is very difficult to enforce in practice. If I go on holidays and leave my dog with family, but it escapes and kills someone, can I really be held liable? That's very unlikely to stand up to a legal challenge.

    And it's still not a preventative measure, it only punishes people after the fact.

    If we're serious about actually preventing serious/fatal attacks, then a ban is the only possible way to do that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,005 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Yes that argument can be applied to any law and enforcement is an issue in general.

    As for picking up dog ****, I feel that was more a societal change that led to people doing it rather than the risk of fines. Same with littering, everyone knows it's illegal and could result in a fine but never happens (not referring to fly tipping just general littering).

    The crack down really needs to start with breeding and buying of dogs but it would take a massive effort to be proactive about that and that's never going to happen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Packrat


    Whoa there. There is NO requirement to show that ANY extreme circumstance was present NOR is there any requirement to contact gardai until after the fact.

    The only requirement is that the animal was "not under the control" of its handler or by itself, and that there was a potential risk to livestock, the landowner, or others. That's the law Boet.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



  • Registered Users Posts: 583 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    The burden of proof is entirely on you to show that it was an extreme circumstance and you were unable to contact gardai.

    How many unanswered calls constitutes 'unable to contact the Gardaí?' Two, three, fifteen? Rang two local stations several times each to report joyriders in the local area only last month - no answer on the phones.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,564 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    It anazingvtge amount of people that do not understand the law like @boetstark. There is no requirement for a landowner or other individual to contact anyone where an uncontrolled dog is on there land/property. If the dog is a danger to people, livestock or other animals the property owner or there agents are fully entitled to shoot it.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Do it so and see if you are correct. BTW the IFA give different advice on their website. My cousin who is a Garda / ASU and my wife who is a qualified Solicitor generally agree with my interpretation, but hey what would they know.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,564 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    You are right what would they know as they are incorrect. You shoot the dog worring the stock first and then ring the gardai to notify them of your action

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Terrier2023


    my neighbours sheep come into my fields every day they have broken my fences by knocking the walls, and they drink from my clean water trough and consume my grass and the mineral lick for my horses. My shepherd herds these sheep out to my boundary every day he is intelligent and knows his job. He is not a dangerous dog.

    he is very gentle & quiet until someone unknown to him comes to the house then he will be on guard and until identified as a known person like a gardener or a workman he will be very intimidating. i dont have a gun he is my gun he is not a dangerous dog but i am quite sure if a person is mis behaving on the premises or is dis respectful to me he will engage and like the sheep he will put them out. I value this dog. I have trained him i realise his intelligence and i respect his space and look after him well. he will never harm me. A lot of people under estimate their dogs and therin lies the fault.



  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭boetstark




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    This is correct, I've had to shoot numerous dogs over the years for worrying sheep, on my own and on neighbours land and it's never been an issue with the Gardai



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Packrat


    I have, twice, It went fine except for the poor dead livestock. I am correct.

    Could you link to that IFA advice - the specific piece please. I wouldn't put it past that shower of eegits to have it wring on their site but I haven't noticed it.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



Advertisement