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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dangerous Dogs Owners

1424345474850

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,128 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    some types of dogs are more dangerous than others

    If I'm not mistaken, there's what? Almost 400 dog breeds accepted? Right?

    ( Correct me on that, because not too sure about the real number)

    So get yourself notepad or whatever and start making a list of more dangerous dogs than others. Can't wait for your suggestions.

    It's much more doable to establish proper approach, education, basics when it comes to dog ownership, breeding etc. Might take a time, but probably worth it in the long run. Bans in England sorted nothing. Did we learn anything from it... Nope.

    And please, spare me of some wild thoughts of yours...

    Post edited by xhomelezz on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,128 ✭✭✭xhomelezz




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    as incredible as it might sound, when I suggested a ban would reduce the risk of attacks, someone responded “it could well end up with quite opposite results.”

    Mental, right?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    A ban is only as good as its enforcement. Hopefully it is enforced strictly otherwise some may take it into their own hands.



  • Registered Users Posts: 211 ✭✭BurnUp78


    The Restricted breed list should be abolished anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,128 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    It's not mental as you say, ban will bring no positives. If any of what people are saying is true (as in that only scumbags have these dogs), do you think they will obey the law? I don't think so. Do you think breeding these dogs in Ireland will stop? I don't think so. Do you think it will actually be enforced? I don't think so.

    So we could potentially end up with plenty of banned dogs which won't be socialised, trained, no vet visits etc., because owners will try to hide them. Now try to imagine what will happen, when some of those dogs will manage to escape. And it will happen. Generally situation around the dogs in Ireland is fooking bad, but this legislation will only make it worse.

    Breed specific legislation doesn't work, there's plenty of research done on that matter. If you are any good with Google, there's even Irish study done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Without a law these is no room to act. At least with a law action is possible unlike before, hopefully it will be acted on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    end up with plenty of banned dogs which won't be socialised, trained, no vet visits etc., because owners will try to hide them. Now try to imagine what will happen, when some of those dogs will manage to escape. .

    The whole problem is that these dog owners won’t train them, won’t look after them, let them escape. We’re already living this, so if a ban at least dramatically reduces the number of these yokes, then that’s a good thing because it must reduce the risk

    Doing nothing - as you’re so insistently proposing - isn’t an option. An outright ban isn’t perfect but it’s the only option really.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,128 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    Doing nothing - as you’re so insistently proposing - isn’t an option.

    I'm not doing that.

    Ban won't drastically reduce the numbers of these yokes (your word), don't think there's any significant number of dogs of that breed in Ireland anyway, maybe you have some figures to show.

    For how long is Restricted breeds list in action? Did it somehow affect numbers of dog attacks? Nope. Dog attacks, or bites numbers are growing. From limited sources we have here, most of attacks goes with unrestricted breeds.

    Introducing ban, without sorting out already existing problems, is only a political stunt.

    I'm glad you are happy with ban and hope to see you here in a year to show me how ban is working.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    The ban doesn't go far enough. Those breeds or close relatives should be destroyed.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,037 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Sad to see the DSPCA coming out with a statement saying "it's the owner not the breed". The doggie equivalent of "a good man with a gun".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Well as I posted previously the resident vet in Irish Independent, chief veterinary officer for Ireland and numerous dog behaviouralists all say the ban will make things worse.

    But hey what do they know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Please just stop giving out false information. It's not perfectly legal to shoot a domestic animal just because it's on your property. The burden of proof is entirely on you to show that it was an extreme circumstance and you were unable to contact gardai.

    If naive readers believe your crap they could find themselves in a heap of trouble.

    I'm beginning to think you are living in sort of Rambo fantasy land.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Taken from the web.

    "An Garda Síochána has issued a clear warning to dog owners that farmers are “within their rights to shoot any animal” that is worrying sheep or other livestock."

    Seems clear cut to me.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    German shepherd = more dangerous than a cocker spaniel

    Rodhesion ridgeback = more dangerous than a miniature schnauzer

    Rottweiler = more dangerous than a standard poodle.

    See it’s not hard to do. Take all the dogs on the restricted breeds. They are they because of the potential damage they could inflict.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭drury..


    Must be some crack conducting Garda raids

    These dogs coming at you as soon as you get in



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    That doesn't say "just because it's on your land". It says "and worrying sheep".

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭newport2


    Another option is legislation to hold owners of dogs directly responsible for the dogs actions. If my dog attacks someone, I should be charged with assault, etc. Whatever charge that correlates to what the dog did should get applied to me, up to and including manslaughter.

    As a dog owner, I think this should be enforced. Whatever my dog does is my responsibility/fault and I should be held accountable. If you don't accept that, don't get a dog.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Nobody who's saying that a ban wouldn't work seems interested in examining this suggestion. It seems like as good an idea as any other to me.

    Of course the problem in Ireland, as always, will be in following up and applying the bloody law, whatever it is. We're not good at that - and that was ok in a rural country where social pressure meant that there were other sorts of control on people's behaviour, but in a diverse society with large anonymous towns, that's a rtecipe for disaster.

    (A general point, applicable to a lot more than dog ownership laws, of course)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    I think nearly everyone who is saying a ban is a waste of time are saying enforcement is the issue. And I think nearly all of them are calling for better regulations and enforcement around dog ownership. I know I am. I'd have no issue with much harsher punishments, including prison sentences, for people breaking the law when it comes to owning a dog.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭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.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭volchitsa


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

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 606 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,028 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,028 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭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”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,088 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Another small child seriously injured by the family pet, this time in Kerry.

    What are people thinking? Why put your need to have a dangerous dog at home over the life of your newly born child?

    Another family now having to live with the aftermath of a dog attack, where no doubt they often told visitors and friends how gentle their dog was and how it wouldn't harm a fly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,018 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    Regardless of what you state Boetstark the reality is dogs are shot in fields for worrying livestock all the time. I've done it myself. I then told the owner and the gardaí. The owner realised he fucked up and was apologetic and the Five-0 had no issue.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Another family now having to live with the aftermath of a dog attack

    Well, if it was their dog in their home, I hope they are criminally charged in the same way they would if the dog had attacked a stranger.

    It's the 12-month old who really has to live with the aftermath.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,088 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    True, but I'd like to think the parents will be racked with guilt for the rest of their lives, every time they look at their daughter.

    For anyone who is seeing this story, to add to the others over the recent years, and are still happy to have a dangerous dog around their young family, you would like to think they would be having 2nd thoughts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54 ✭✭GreenPanda99


    A big rotwieler i think it was ran up to my niece when we were in the park and scared the living daylights out of us all. It didnt bite but jumped on her. The owner comes over all friendly and say "he wont touch you he is just being friendly", as if that made it ok that a 5 year old is now terrified of any dog.

    Keep your dogs on a leash and far away from other people. If your dog (be it a poodle or a bully) runs up to people in their personal space, whether its attacking them or not, you dont have control of it. You dont deserve to own a dog.

    These dogs are all fine and friendly … until they arent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 CookingGuy


    Nothing really to be done though, I mean you can't actually "ban" a living thing, that's a road that ends up nazi territory and all that sort of thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,037 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Talk about slippery slope fallacy. We most certainly can ban animals that are dangerous from being around humans.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭TinyMuffin


    Who in their right mind would have 1 of these dogs around children ffs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭French Toast


    Poor little kid. We’ve a 14 month old here and that story ran a shiver up my spine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 CookingGuy


    Name one time they banned animals you'll never have Gardai going door to door taking people's dogs off them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,275 ✭✭✭Packrat


    Big exotic cats are banned. I'm not aware of a general problem arising from that so I'd say it works.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭csirl


    There needs to be enforcement. In my area, most restricted breeds are not muzzled in public. More often than not, the kids playground in the local park has an unleased pit bull running free (....."easier to catch the dog after it has a run as the playground is fenced off....."). I have zero optimism that these new laws will be enforced.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    you would like to think they would be having 2nd thoughts.

    I would bet you that every single one of them is thinking "well I'm glad that my dog would never attack my child, sure he's part of the family"

    Every. Single. One.



Advertisement