New Events

National

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire

offsite link In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire

offsite link UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović

offsite link US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire

offsite link Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.  We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below). 

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link ?Democracy?, European Union version, by Thierry Meyssan Tue May 21, 2024 07:19 | en

offsite link The Blood-Red Sunset of the West, by Manlio Dinucci Mon May 20, 2024 10:05 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N°87 Sat May 18, 2024 05:29 | en

offsite link Europa Viva 2024 kowtows to the Straussians Sat May 18, 2024 03:01 | en

offsite link The world economic order is falling apart, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme Fri May 17, 2024 08:13 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Death sentence looms over family pets following Dublin City Councils’ decision

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | press release author Sunday July 08, 2007 01:22author by Miriam Anderson - ANVIL Irelandauthor email info at anvilireland dot ieauthor address PO Box, 10914, Dublin 22author phone 0861999512 Report this post to the editors

Council tenants tagetted in councils' latest move

Many family pets are at risk of being destroyed following the decision by Dublin City Council to ban all dogs listed under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991.

ANVIL Ireland has condemned this move. Spokesperson, Miriam Anderson stated “this decision appears to have been made in the absence of any informed discussion with rescue or welfare groups. The fact that Dublin City Council has referred to all of these breeds as “dangerous dogs” implies a total lack of understanding of both the breeds in question and the existing legislation”.

Many family pets are at risk of being destroyed following the decision by Dublin City Council to ban all dogs listed under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991. Restricted breeds include; the American Pit Bull Terrier, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Dobermann Pinscher, English Bull Terrier, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Ban Dog or any crosses of these breeds.

ANVIL Ireland has condemned this move. Spokesperson, Miriam Anderson stated “this decision appears to have been made in the absence of any informed discussion with rescue or welfare groups. The fact that Dublin City Council has referred to all of these breeds as “dangerous dogs” implies a total lack of understanding of both the breeds in question and the existing legislation”.

Some of these breeds were originally bred as herding animals, it is bad breeding, irresponsible owners, and negative reporting by certain sections of the media that has led to this situation. Education and stricter enforcement of the existing legislation is what is needed, not an outright ban. Such bans have not worked in other countries and to say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not an accurate statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner

This is discrimination against council tenants as well as any responsible owner of one of these breeds. The councils’ proposed bylaw amendments will mean that these animals could not be walked in a public park, regardless of where its’ owner lives.

ANVIL members are angry but not surprised by the councils’ decision; “It further proves how little we care for companion animals in this country when an ill advised decision like this can be taken so quickly, but we have waited over a year for the implementation of the dog breeding regulations, and almost 100 years for updated animal protection legislation. We cannot call ourselves civilised if we can treat animals in this cavalier fashion”, their spokesperson said.

ANVIL is calling on all owners of restricted breeds to write to Dublin City Council and the Minister for the Environment to register their opposition to the councils’ decision and proposal of a nationwide ban on these dogs. Further information may be obtained from www.anvilireland.ie

For more information, contact: Miriam Anderson, ANVIL Ireland Co-ordinator on 0861999512 and/or visit the ANVIL Ireland website www.anvilireland.ie

Related Link: http://www.anvilireland.ie
author by Sarah Gunther - Bull Breed Rescuepublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 01:43author email webmaster at egar dot orgauthor address author phone 086-1545454Report this post to the editors

EGAR (East Galway Animal Rescue) was founded as a Bull Breed Sanctuary 10 years ago. It's main purpose apart from rescuing dogs in need is the education about dogs, restricted breeds in particular. This new move to ban certain breeds is a kneejerk reaction all to well known to the Irish public. Instead of enforcing the existing law regarding restricted breeds, new laws are invented out ot the blue without any research and/or common sense. It shows how little the authorities have done their homework and will spell disaster for many thousand innocent canines in this land of the celtic tiger...

BSL does not work as other countries have shown. Bite statistics have shown that restricted breeds are LESS likely to bite and that non restricted breeds who bite never make it into the newspapers as the *shock factor* simply is not the same if you publish a picture of a Labrador.

In 10 years Bull Breed Rescue here in Ireland I have not been bitten or threatened ONCE by a restricted breed. Bear in mind that I take most of the dogs from pounds and know nothing whatsoever about their past.

It is a sad state of affairs that the responsible agencies are not educating themselves properly before they come up with such ludicrous bylaws and the demand for a national ban.

Ban the deed not the breed - THAT should be the motto. Irresponsible owners must be punished not a whole breed at large.

Related Link: http://www.egar.org
author by kim - new forest animal rescuepublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 02:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ban the deed not the breed , this has not been thought through at all , there are going to be many hundreds of inocent dogs being killed because of this , i want to know how the person/persons responsible for this ban, what grounds do you have to take so many inocent lives ? and how can you judge people in council housing unfit to look after such dogs ? this can not be allowed to happen .

author by Susan Duffpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 02:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I find it incredible and horrifying that Dublin City Council would even consider this action.

We have so many problems in this city and instead of addressing them the council are doing this! The mind boggles. Drugs, vandalism, theft, gun crimes, ASBOs and what do we do?? Kill animals??????

They are punishing the innocent and sentancing them to death. No dog is born bad - it is how they are raised. Until legislation punishes the owners/breeders who have been irresponsible and/opr cruel, the problem will contine - they will now move to different breeds.

Now, thousands of innocent animals will die and the councilors can pat themselves on the back for doing something about Dublin's problems.

I am utterly disgusted and will be using my vote in the local elections to show how I feel.

author by gillpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is an outrage and surely is an attack on our civil liberties?

A responsible " restricted breed" pet owner who resides in a council flat/house within the DCC area is now, by this absurd legislation, deemed to be a 2nd class citizen, as if "unfit" to own a pet who is on the "Restricted Breeds" list .

I assume the Council for Civil Liberties will be taking a very keen interest in this hammer fisted piece of legislation.

Related Link: http://www.anvilireland.ie
author by Sheena - Clare Animal Welfarepublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:03author address Co Clareauthor phone Report this post to the editors

Clare Animal Welfare strongly oppose the Dublin City Council's new bylaw and any new additions they intend to add to it. One of our own committee member's lives with her two young children and a selection of animals one of whom is a breed from the dangerous dogs list with no aggression ever seen, she can even be seen sleeping whilst the free range chickens eat from the ground around her.

The dogs with aggression problems are not born that way, they are infact trained to be that way by irresponsible owners who know no better. Any breed of dog could be trained by these types of people to act aggressive and therefore by an uneducated move such as that made by the Dublin City Council nothing will be achieved and it leaves the path wide open for other breeds to join the current list of dangerous dog breeds.

All dog owners need to stand as a united front against this new bylaw before others follow suit and thousands of dogs end up being put to sleep unnecessarily.

author by Miranda Cookpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 15:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dublin City Council's decision to ban 11 breeds of dogs from their properties is discriminatory - now you may only own these types of dogs in Dublin if you are well-off enough not to have to live in council housing.It is also based on ignorance and fear, stirred up by a media desperate to sell papers and make money.

For many of the residents of Dublin City Council this decision is devastating and the emotional impact (to say nothing of the knock -on effect of the total disgust and disrespect for the council) will be felt for many years to come. To be faced with the choice of having your kids put into a childrens home while you are left on the streets with your dog having decided you won't lose him or losing - quite possibly having to have killed - a perfectly friendly, healthy and beloved family pet is enough to cause lifelong mental trauma.

Who will pay for that? Who will pay for the dogs in the pounds,, the extra policing, the court cases? Who will pay to clear up the increased vandalism over the forthcoming decades which goes hand in hand with the dissatisfaction and despair of generations of Dublin council residents? Not Dublin City Council or the fool who decided this, thats for sure. The people of Dublin will pick up the tab.

Worse than any of this by far is this simple fact:

HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF DOGS WILL DIE DUE TO THIS ILL-INFORMED DECISION.

This is a crime against humanity.

author by citizenpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 17:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The thing is this, I walked down the street with a smallish child last week and a Rottweiler
in the company of a teenager walked past us. The dog was not muzzled. The dog was
bigger than the child and I have seen an attack by a half-wolf breed on an eight year old.
His stomach was stitched in three places and he would not put down the book
a nurse had given him. So if the bye-laws state that you must muzzle your dog, do it!
The rules on breeding and fighting dogs have been broken and they are used in parts
of Dublin to intimidate people , especially on the canals. if owners want these animals
who respond to the strange movements of kids with violence then responsible ownership
and following of safety rules are necessary for the people in the community who care
more about their children's safety and well being than the use of animals to
frighten and harm people. A dog is a responsibility within a community and I have
seen attacks , lax ownership and use of animals for gambling and violence.

author by Katypublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 17:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Perhaps Dublin City Council and its members, Councillors and other supporters of this absurd and destructive piece of discriminatory legislation should take a moment to ponder
the following :-

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
~St. Francis of Assisi

author by citizenpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 18:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

these are fight dogs, they have to be treated with respect and responsibility.
They can maim and kill, especially small kids whose uncordinated movements attract them.
If you want to fight the ban awareness of other's concerns are important and necessary.
awareness of what damage vicious dogs can do- they are not 'pets'
These 'pets' have maimed small kids, and owners are walking round Dublin without
observing basic safety considerations ???
Lobby for restraint by the council but awareness of both sides of the argument and encouragement
of responsible ownership is necessary, including a data-bank of members who breed and
keep these animals, this way maybe people who are attracted to vicious dogs will see the
necessity of health and safety issues and may discourage people buying these animals for
young teenage boys who use them to intimidate people.

author by Jacquipublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 18:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is just the DCC's way of avoiding having to enforce exising legislation (Control of Dogs act).

They are trying to save some money by slaughtering innocent animals. Those who fight aren't going to worry about the ban, the only people affected will be the law-abiding citizens and the innocent animals.

If strays were reliably picked up, if microchipping was mandatory, if dog licences did more than just line the pockets of councils, then this would never have become an issue.

It's hysteria and it's completely unfounded. I have friends with Alsatians, Rottwiellers, and Dobermans and none of them are vicious dogs. I have however seen vicious jack russell terriers, poodles and cocker spaniels. Don't get me started on Pomeranians.

"Who will think of the children?" has nothing to do with this. This is skrimping on necessities of the dirtiest kind. Slaughter animals because it's the easy solution.

Tut tut.

I'll never vote labour again.

author by Dorothy Galepublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 19:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

These dogs are not pets. Already they are supposed to be muzzled in public but this rarely happens. The vast majority of Council tenants do not have these dogs, they have rights as well. They have the right not to be intimidated by those who use these attack dogs as status symbols.

Dont support the anti-social minority who keep these attack dogs. There is no valid reason for keeping savage animals in urban areas. They are not pets. Support the vast majority of Council tenants who wish to live in peace and safety.

These attack dogs should be totally banned in Ireland.

author by Jacquipublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 20:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You say they should be muzzled in public "but that never happens"

Do you not believe that the council should try and enforce this instead of slaughtering dogs without testing their temperaments to see if they are vicious or not?

While some dogs are bred to fight, there is legislation pending to licence all dog breeding establishments, and that (if enforced) would seriously curb this problem.

The problem? Enforcement is expensive so instead they'd rather slaughter hundreds of dogs (in addition to the 17000 dogs slaughtered officially in Ireland every year) than spend the money to prosecute the law-breakers so that responsible, law abiding people can enjoy their civil liberties.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

In Italy their dog ban now includes HUNDREDS of breeds including Corgis and Border Collies. Where will it stop?

I have a labrador, I am not immediately affected by this but I still think it's scandalous. All free roaming dogs can be dangerous and yet the councils refuse to tackle the problem, instead they will criminalise people who have well trained pets, just because they can't afford a private dwelling.

I have absolutely no problem with muzzling, requiring someone over 16 to be in charge of a powerful animal and I believe there should be 3 times as many dog wardens so strays can be picked up reliably. I also believe we need proper pound facilities... but DCC are not suggesting any of this.... it's the baby and the bathwater or nothing!

author by Dorothy Galepublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 20:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The dogwardens would have to be armed to be in a position to enforce the muzzling. Is there a certain number of children who have to be killed or maimed for life before you will accept that cities are not an appropriate place for atackdogs. Again I must point out that the vast majority of council tenants do not keep attack dogs and do not want their children or indeed themselves to be at risk.

All reasonable and rational people will support a ban on these vicious attack dogs.

author by S ROSSpublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 21:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

People are commenting on 'attack dogs' - any dog can be trained to attack, just as any dog can be brought up to be a well trained loving member of a family. German SHEPHERDS were/are are herding breed.

DEED not BREED, use the resources to go after the PEOPLE not adhering to the current laws. You wouldn't (I hope) judge a person just be the way they look, colour of their skin etc - why judge a dog in the same way?

author by Dorothypublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 21:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You wouldn't (I hope) judge a person just be the way they look, colour of their skin etc - why judge a dog in the same way?"

Thats a totally irrational comparison. Dogs are not people.

These attackdogs are being banned because enough is enough. You might not think that enough children have been savaged by these dogs but I do. I still wonder if there is a critical mass for you lot? If say another 5 children were torn asunder by these beasts, woul you agree to have them banned?I'm glad that the Council are acting in such a responsible manner. What is required is legislation to totally ban these brutes throughout the country.

Nobody requires a "pet" of the size of these dogs.

author by Jacquipublication date Sun Jul 08, 2007 23:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The size of what?

My labrador is quite a lot larger than most bull-breeds and they're the ones most of the hysterics seem to be about.

You still haven't answered anyone else's questions... more of the "won't someone please think of the children" emotive stuff.

I don't want anyone injured, by a jack russell or by a poodle or by a collie... existing dog control legislation (if enforced) is sufficient to prevent this, but since they refuse to enforce it, they'd rather kill more dogs.

I don't want my kids growing up in a country where you can't have a dog bigger than a yappy westie and where the government takes temper tantrums to introduce needless bans to fix problems that are already provided for in law.

It's needless, cruel, victimises the poor and will not stop the actual criminals because Ireland's laws are rarely enforced properly.

author by Mikeschpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:18author email v_resch at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think this is crazy there is no reason to discriminate dogs because of their breed.

Dogs get aggressive because they are trained to be aggressive or perhaps they have been mistreated but no dog is dangerous because it belongs to a specific breed.

I am wondering where does the government get its information from? To me it sounds like the goverment is taking the easy way by punishing thousands of innocent dogs and dog owner because of a few black sheep.

So we have a mass culling of dogs who have a bad name and the government is actually going to do this to try to make the public think it is doing something about a big problem which is in fact irresponsible pet owners who train their dogs to fight, when it’s doing nothing except culling breeds of dogs that has been abused.

author by Janepublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 13:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is a desperate situation for all responsible owners of such breeds. Many dogs who are of these breeds are gentle, affectionate much loved family pets. It is only the majority that are aggressive, mainly due to the way that they are treated and raised.

I heard a quote recently that said "A knife in my hand is used to cut vegetables. In the hand of someone else, it is used to attack". This very much describes the situation with these dogs - A dog - any dog - in the right hands is an object of love and affaction. A dog - any dog - in the wrong hands can be used for the wrong reasons.

It is despicable that because of the lack of education and animal welfare legislation in Ireland, dog owners will lose their beloved pets and dogs will lose their lives.

author by Catladypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 13:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To those who have left comments supporting the ban of "attack dogs"...

Nobody who is against this ban wants a situation where dogs of any breed or size are allowed to attack anyone, and particularly not children.

The problem we have with the ban is that it unjustly discriminates against certain breeds of dogs. This type of legislation, as it has been pointed out, has not worked in other countries where it has been introduced. It is pointless and leads to the slaughtering of harmless dogs whilst doing nothing to prevent attacks on humans or other animals. That is the point we are all trying to make here.

I have two dogs myself, one of them a little Jack Russel cross, the other a collie cross. The Jack Russel cannot be trusted with kids as she is terrified of them - no doubt due to some past experience of being roughly treated by them. She is lucky enough to have ended up with a responsible owner (myself) who never ever lets her come in contact with them, either on the streets or in my own home. if family or friends call with their children, she is placed in a seperate room, just in case. Any dog can be a biter. Of course, there are concerns when it comes to dogs which have been mistreated and trained to attack, but this is far from being the case with all dogs of the listed breeds. I have known German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Bulldogs etc who are perfect family dogs. And as it has been pointed out here already, other dogs (like my JRT) are far more likely to bite, and the statistics prove this. ANY BREED OF DOG can attack if trained to do so, if abused, neglected or not kept under proper supervision.

The problem should of course be dealt with, but not by simply removing animals willy-nilly from their homes and killing them. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Those individuals using dogs to intimidate people, to fight etc ought to be dealt with and banned from keeping any animls for life, full stop. It is the PEOPLE who are responsible, not the animlas. Deal with THEM rather than killing innocent dogs and discriminating against innocent people just because they live on council estates.

Once again, BSL DOES NOT WORK to decrease dog attacks. This is just another example of the short-sighted methods emplyoyed by authorities in blatant denial of expert advice and the precedent observed in other countries.

Animla advocates want the problem of dogs attacking and straying and not being under proper control tackled more than anyone - this, however, is not the way to go about it. It's as simple as that, and any vet or dog behaviour expert worht their salt will say that the problem is the owner, not the dog. If these breeds are exterminated, they will be replaced by others who will also be abused/trained to fight and attack etc., and we will be back to square one in no time at all. it is NOT a matter of putting dogs before children as suggested by some here - it's a question of finding a real solution which will work in the long term rather than wantonly killing innocent dogs just because they live in a certain area.

author by Susan Duffpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 14:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anyone who really cared about the safety of our children would oppose this ban. This will not make our children safer. There have been numerous studies to prove this.

These irresponsible breeders and owners will merely switch to other breeds (Retrievers perhaps????) and these dogs will turn out to be just as dangerous.

Enforcing the law is the only way. If owners were made to take responsibility for their dogs and to have them under control at ALL times there would be no need for this.

DCC are sentancing thousands of animals to death and doing nothing to stop the underlying problem. What research have they done to support this decision??

author by Dorothypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 14:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Thats the problem. To you lot dogs are more important than people. Jack Russel terriers and poodles do not kill or savage children on a regular basis. They are not trained as attack dogs. They are not status symbols for anti social thugs.

If you want a pet then get a Jack Russel or a spaniel. You dont need an attack dog. The vast majority of people in council housing do not keep attasck dogs. They have rights as well. Their rights should take precedence over the selfishg anti social minority who want to keep these savage brutes.

author by Susan Duffpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 15:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We are the ones who do care and who are trying to make sure that no child has to suffer.

You seem to be content with killing these pets and not stopping the problem. At least you can comfort yourself with that when all these pets have been killed and kids are still being attacked - who will you blame then? You may be happy to do nothing to stop child attacks in the future but I could not sleep at not if I thought like that.

We should be trying to make sure no dog attacks a child regardless of it's breed.

author by Catladypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 15:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dorothy and others expressing similar views,

Please read the posts, and do some basic research before launching into a rant and insulting concerned members of the public. Nobody here is defending the rights of thugs who abuse and neglect ot train animals to attack. NOBODY. As has been stated and restated, this is a problem whic DOES exist, but that this legislation will NOT ADDRESS.

"US lot" want the situation addressed, and want the problem dealt with EFFECTIVELY. We want a real solution, not a knee-jerk reaction which amounts to nothing more than pandering to meedia-fuelled hysteria.

This legislation will protect NOBODY.

author by Dorothypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 16:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Stop being so arrogant. I have read the article and I disagree with its sentiments. Can you not accept that people have the right to have opinions which differ from yours? Only a tiny anti-social minority keep these breeds of dogs.

This action will help a lot of people. It means that large aggressive dogs wuill be cleared out of Council estates. If Council tenants refuse to get rid of their dogs then they can be evicted. I'm sure the majority of Council tenants who only want to live in peace and safety will say good riddance to this anti-social minority.

Enough of the nonsense: Jack Russels, Spaniels, Poodles are not trained as attackdogs. Nor are they seen as status symbols by anti-social thugs.

author by Susan Duffpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 16:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dorothy - is it their size that bothers you? You say no-one needs a pet that big etc.

Do you think Labradors, Retrievers and Boxers should also be banned? If in the wrong hands, these dogs could also do serious damage. They are not a status symbol to a certain element but could be in the future

Do you not think that is the problem that should be tackled?

author by Dorothypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 16:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Labradors, Retrievers and Boxers "

Are not trained as attackdogs. Its unlikely that they will be taken up as status symbols by anti social elements. But if they are and if as a result people are attacked and children are killed then it will be necessary to ban them.

Remember: people are more important than dogs. Only a tiny nminority of Council tenants keep dangerous breeds. Support the vast majority who don't.

author by We the Peoplepublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 17:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What I see here is 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' Senario attempt by D.C.C. to infringe on the People's rights and not the Animal's rights.

Who the hell does the Legal Department of D.C.C. think they are to impose a ban , which I presume has no Lawful grounds , on all Dogs in the care of their owners.

'In the care of their owners' is the operative bit.

If owners submit to D.C.C. on this, you might as well open your Door and invite them in to see how many eggs you eat for breakfast.

There is already legislation to deal with the duty of care issue for Dog owners to comply with in the event of a situation. Ask Terry O'Keeffe Law Agent for D.C.C. to show you the Law.
POLICY IS NOT LAW.
.................. SHOW ME THE LAW TERRY-SHOW ME THE LAW TERRY- SHOW ME THE LAW TERRY.................

author by Dorothypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 17:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

These rights are already restricted. Private estates and apartment blocks can and do insert clauses regarding the types of animals which may be kept by residents.

Dublin City Council has the right to control anti-social behaviour by its tenants. Its right to evict anti-social tenants have been upheld by the courts.

You will find that the Courts have consistently ruled that human beings have rights which are superior to those of dogs.

author by Catladypublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 19:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You accuse me of arrogance whilst persistantly ignoring the facts presented by other posters here, and insulting those who base their comments on those facts.

BSL has been shown not to work in other countries. It does nothing to reduce the number of injuries inflicted by dogs.

You also display your prejudice by persistently stating that only thugs have dogs of these breeds. This is quite simply untrue. You may aswell say that anyone who owns a terrier goes foxhunting or a spaniel shooting. I am no thug by any stretch of anyone's imagination and have considered rehoming a rottweiler very recently. My reasons for this have nothing to do with wanting a dog who is likely to attack anyone or for training them to fight. I simply think that they are exquisitely beautiful animals and all those I have known (who were the companions of friends or acquaintances) were extremely gentle, affectionate and loyal.

By all means tackle the thugs who mistreat dogs/train them to attack/ use them for fighting. Ban them from keeping animals altogether and impose heavy penalties for thise who flout the law. Assess the seized dogs' temperament and then come to an informed decision regarding the best course of action to take. Nobody here would have a problem with that.

Do not take innocent, gentle and loving companion animals from their families who love and care for them because a minority of brats have no sense of responsibility or respect for life, human or non-human.

In other words, deal with the problem rather than making scapegoats of dogs and people who have done nothing wrong.

author by Mike - Judean Popular People's Frontpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 21:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Im with Dorothy on this one but Jacqui has a point on the enforcment issue.

The only people who will be affected by this law is are the "responsible dog owners" (A very rare species in Ireland but thats another story)

Most people will blatantly ignore the law and the authorities will do absolutly damn all about it.

It is a bad law in that it only applies to those in local authority housing but the council arent entirely to blame on this score in that they probably dont have the legal power to extend such legislation to privately owned or rented housing anyway.

There are actually probably very few breeds of dog that are suitable for keeping in urban high density housing (public or private) but good luck trying to sell such "revolutionary" ideas in Ireland or the UK.

author by Susan Duffpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 21:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This talk of 'You lot' is distracting us from the main point - we all want the same thing.

None of us want attacks on children or thugs using these animals to intimidate people. What 'us lot' want is to do something about the cause of the problem.

If we don't we will see Ireland in a similar state to Italy where over 90 breeds are banned, including corgis and collies.

This type of ban has been proven not to work so I cannot understand the support for it.

I do not own one of the breeds on the list but don't want to see innocent people and dogs being punished while the real culprits will continue to be a threat to society.

author by Catherinepublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 22:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We have a beautiful placid 2yr old Staffordshire bull terrier dog. He is a complete pet and has no aggression at all, in fact is a bit of a coward!
I also have three children. Our dog is never allowed roam free, is only brought out on a lead, is always picked up after.
If this ridiculous ban goes ahead, how do I tell my kids that he must go?
The council/ government need to target the louts who give all us responsible pet owners a bad name.
I don't live in Dublin, thankfully, but my heart goes out to anyone there who has a family pet.

author by SBTJulie - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Rescue Volunteer UKpublication date Mon Jul 09, 2007 23:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

All I can add to this current debate is that as a responsible SBT owner and lover, it would be over my dead body that anyone, and I mean anyone, would ever take my dogs away from me. Responsible dog owners in Dublin, do not allow this ludicrous and outrageous attack on yours and your dogs' rights to live in harmony happen...ACT NOW.

Regards

SBTJulie

author by Sarah Gunther - East Galway Animal Rescuepublication date Tue Jul 10, 2007 01:18author email webmaster at egar dot orgauthor address author phone 086-1545454Report this post to the editors

I take great offence to remarks made regarding owners of restricted breeds. I have had Bull Breeds and GSD for over 20 years. I am neither a criminal nor am I moving on the fringes of society. I am University educated and so are many of the people who have adopted dogs off me, including well known TV personalities. Just because you own a certain breed does not make you a criminal with evil intends. Our dogs are well adjusted and fit into our modern day society as the collie next door. I have rehomed well over 900 dogs since EGAR was founded, not one of them has misbehaved or needed to be put to sleep because of a biting incident. Get your facts straight before you repeat lines from the gutter press.

Related Link: http://www.egar.org
author by Ameliapublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 09:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In Italy, over 90 breeds of dogs have been banned. However, a study published in the Emergency Medical Journal in 2005 looked at dog bite incidences in a major Italian City and established that they still have a yearly average of 58.4 dog bites per 100,000 residents, with children under 9 being most at risk. How can we in Ireland than presume that banning 11 breeds will solve this problem? We need to address the real issues or dog attacks will continue.

author by Dorothypublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Theres a difference between dogbites and dogs mauling prople or killing them. Terriers, poodles, spaniels may bite but they do not try and kill someone.

Even rothweillers which appear friendly can be savage. In the recent case 2 rothweilers maimed a child for life burt after this happened a neighbour described them as actiing like poodles towards their owner. There is no such thing as a safe rothweiller.

author by Raptorpublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think one thing that people who are in favour of this ban don't generally realise is this - thugs and anti-social gangs in the city raise these dogs with the intention of abusing them and making them aggressive. If these dogs are banned and the law is enforced, these thugs WILL MOVE ON TO OTHER DOGS. A year from now we could easily have thugs with jack russels terrorising children - there is nothing to stop somebody like that turning any dog into a vicious beast.

Due to their size and strength, collies will probably be one of the first dogs to get recruited by people like this, and what then - ban these popular working dogs and family pets too? And after that, when they move onto yet other breeds - keep on banning until there are just no dog breeds left?

This kind of reactive policy fixes nothing. Dublin City Council, cop on and go for the roots of the weed instead of clipping its leaves.

author by Raptorpublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dorothy, just a point I want to make about your general comments here.. I agree with what you said above about rottweilers often having the potential to be incredibly dangerous. I'm in favour of having dogs like that restricted, and this policy enforced (for once!). However, take a dog such as the akita - how often have you seen this dog on the news for attacking anyone? This dog is a fairly rare breed in Ireland, but has a bad reputation because several centuries ago it was common in Japanese dog fights. So DCC are judging this dog based on reputation and urban myths instead of facts and statistics. It's a large dog with the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands, just like any other large dog, including a labrador. The only two akita owners I know of have small children and have never had problems with the dog. Again it comes back to the owner and what they do with it.

author by Sue McCabe - Muttamorphosis Dog Trainingpublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:06author email sue at muttamorphosis dot co dot ukauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dorethy said.....
There is no such thing as a safe Rottweiler......
Strange then that last year the Pets As Therapy Dog of the Year in the UK was indeed a Rottweiler. But then I suppose her owner never told her this so maybe she thinks she's a poodle!

My German Shepherd has also been assessed and accepted as a Pets as Therapy Dog, but it's ok, he thinks he's a Jack Russel and we haven't corrected him yet so everyone should be safe.

Please get your facts straight.
I am a qualified dog trainer and behaviourist. All dogs can bite. There is no such thing as an 'attack dog' unless you train it to attack. Have you ever been bitten by a labrador? I can tell you now that the potential damage they could do is huge.

I would not dream of making ignorant generalisation about your job or your insight if I knew less than you.

Please, please stop making ill-informed comments and actually go and read some statistics.

The top dog breed biters in ireland 2004-2005 Cocker Spaniel/Lab/Retriever.

In the US at least 1 child is killed every day by parent or guardian. 9 people a year are killed by dogs.
More people die from horseriding and being trampled by cattle in ireland than are killed by dogs.

Lets ban horses and cows while we're at it.

Related Link: http://www.muttamorphosis.co.uk
author by Concernedpublication date Thu Jul 12, 2007 15:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

please note #4 "Don't feed the trolls! "..... i think we have a troll in our midst with the ill-informed comment above about rotties - i wouldn't stoop to their level.

firstly, will the council and the press stop refering to the 11 breeds as 'dangerous' , the existing legislation refers to them as 'restricted'. that's a big difference.

as has been pointed out there is already existing legislation to handle people and their dogs who are not acting as good human and canine citizens (i always blame the owners for any bad behaviour of their dogs).

as has already been pointed out there are certain elements of society that have been allowed to do as they wish:, criminal activity, drugs, cruelty, vandalism, drive by shootings, hoodlums and terrifying entire neighbourhoods. they need to be controlled. they need to be banned from owning any dogs. they are responsible for their own and their dog's unsocial behaviour.

there are many people in this country who still think it's okay to let their dogs roam.. and i'm talking ANY breed.. they need to be made aware of how they are breaking the law. a dog MUST have a collar and ID tag, must have a dog licence, and must be in effectual control. end of story. i can't tell you the times i've been walking my dog properly on a lead and have had to fend off loose dogs - terriers, poodles, labs, yorkies, you name it - because they're allowed to roam and are dogs behaving badly because of their owner's ignorance. and how about those collies that are allowed to dangerously dive at your tires as you drive by?

why hasn't the dog breeding establishment legislation been signed off? this is just sitting there and can help towards ending the horrific puppy farming situation here in ireland. why does that sit there gathering dust, when foolish, ill-conceived and hystrical bans are swept through in the wink of an eye? stop the madness. sweeping bans brought in under the cloak of darkness by councillors claiming their moves are approved by every single council member??? i don't think so!!!! without so much as one single consultation meeting with welfare representatives????? i don't think so.

author by Dorothypublication date Thu Jul 12, 2007 15:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Is it only your view that be allowed to be aired on Indymedia? Yiu speak for a tiny monority.

"i can't tell you the times i've been walking my dog properly on a lead and have had to fend off loose dogs - terriers, poodles, labs, yorkies, "

These dogs might bite someone but they not kill people, they do not try to tear children asunder. There is no such thing as a safe rothweiller. As I pointed out the rothweiller dogs which recently MAIMED A CHILD FOR LIFE were pets of a woman, not of a thug. A neighbour reported that they acted like poodles towards this woman but they were still savage beasts at heart.

I love animals but admit preferring cats to dogs. However no one has any rational need for a doberman, rothweiller or pitbull terrier in a built up area. Only a tiny minority keep such dogs. What about the rights of the vast majority who only wishj to live in peace and safety? Should their wishs be ignored in favour of those of a tiny anti-social minority?

Because anyone who keeps such a dog in an urban area is anti-social. They just dont care about other people. I seriously wonder if there is a critical mass of maimed and slaughtered children to be reached before these anti-socials would agree to give up their beasts.

author by Concernedpublication date Thu Jul 12, 2007 15:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

thank you for your latest post, it confirms my assessment.

as the editiorial guidelines lay out in #4 - i'll not be responding to you further after this.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Concerned:

It just illustrates that you are intolerant of any views contrary to your own. It is grotesque that yoiu should describe me as being a troll just because I disagree with you.

The fact is that if there is any troll on this thread it is you with your contempt for democratic debate.

I support the vast majority of Council tenants who do not keep these dangerous animals. If a secret ballot was conducted among Council tenants I am confidant they would vote to bar these beasts. So far this year 10 people have been attacked by these types of dogs on Dubli City Council property, 3 of the victims were children. Enough is enough, lets get rid of these attackdogs now.

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Eric Byrne was terrible on this issue this morning. He admitted that it was discriminatory if applied to people living in houses and his main concern was council flats. Listening to him it is obvious that DCC haven't thought this out properly. Of course it is wrong for people to have their dogs tied up on balconies but to punish those who don't is plain nuts.
After listening to Eric this morning though it is obvious that this is the brainwave of the 'Fuck Fatima Mansions' wing of the Labour Party.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"After listening to Eric this morning though it is obvious that this is the brainwave of the 'Fuck Fatima Mansions' wing of the Labour Party."

Whats that supposed to mean? Labour have no problems in getting votes in South Central, they came close to taking a second Dail seat there. Eric knows that he is speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Council tenants who dont want these dogs in their area.

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

He stated on Newstalk this morning that he didn't believe that the ban should (could) be enforced in council houses. It was his belief that it should only be enforced in the flats.
Red Eric sure has come a long way. He maybe should downgrade himself to pink going blue.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that people should have the right to keep these dogs in flats and on balconies?

If thats what Eric said then I disagreewith him. The council can evict people for anti-social behaviour. Keeping those breeds could be classified as anti-social behaviour.

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Are you saying that people should have the right to keep these dogs in flats and on balconies?"

Now that's two different questions and the question also shows that you didn't actually read the earlier point that I made. There's probably not much point in engaging with you.

"Keeping those breeds could be classified as anti-social behaviour."

And this sentence shows that you are as confused as Eric and the DCC. What a mess.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Now that's two different questions and the question also shows that you didn't actually read the earlier point that I made. There's probably not much point in engaging with you."

I did read your answer. It indictated that you didnt believe that dogs could be kept in flats. but you then criticised Eric for making that point. You are the one who appears to hold contradictory opinions.,

""Keeping those breeds could be classified as anti-social behaviour."
And this sentence shows that you are as confused as Eric and the DCC. What a mess."

How does it show that? DCC could decide to adopt a policy wherby it it was illegal for their tenants to keep certain breeds of dogs. The vast majority of tenants dont keep such breeds and I am confident that if they were given a vote in a secret ballot they would endorse the banning of these breeds.

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I said I didn't think dogs should be kept on balconies, I said nothing about keeping them in flats safely.
You also say that keeping these dogs could be classified as anti-social behaviour. How so? That would then have to apply to the private property owner as well. Can't see that happening.
The present laws should be enforced, simple really.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 13:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"said I didn't think dogs should be kept on balconies, I said nothing about keeping them in flats safely."

But you criticised Eric Byrne. You cant have it both ways.

"You also say that keeping these dogs could be classified as anti-social behaviour. How so? "

Because it upsets other people and potentially endangers them. There are many things that are clasified as anti-social behavour that DCC can enforce on its tenants.

"That would then have to apply to the private property owner as well. Can't see that happening."

Two seperate things. DCC also supplies houses as well as flats. It can enforce a code of conduct on them as well.

As for private dwellings, there are already a range of laws which resrict what can be done in private dwellings, eg running a business from them. Planning laws also restrict the rights of private property. New legislation could be introduced in the Dail.

"The present laws should be enforced, simple really."

Not enough, there are no rational reasons for keeping rothweillers in urban areas.

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 16:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"But you criticised Eric Byrne. You cant have it both ways."

I didn't realise Eric Byrne was above criticism. Eric Byrne was on the radio this morning and he moved away from the DCC blanket ban. (Either he supports the ban or doesn't, confusing really) He didn't feel it was enforceable on housing estates (wouldn't have anything to do with the discriminatory nature of that ban, now would it?). Yet he doesn't have a problem with flat owners being treated differently than apartment owners in the Dublin City environs. Strange that.

"Because it upsets other people and potentially endangers them. There are many things that are clasified as anti-social behavour that DCC can enforce on its tenants."

Indeed there are many things DCC could enforce on their tenants and their record on it is appalling. Why don't you run for election for the next locals, set out your platform of what you would want the council to enforce on its tenants. (or in other words what upsets you.)

"Two seperate things. DCC also supplies houses as well as flats. It can enforce a code of conduct on them as well."

So you have no problem with discriminatory laws then?

"As for private dwellings, there are already a range of laws which resrict what can be done in private dwellings, eg running a business from them. Planning laws also restrict the rights of private property. New legislation could be introduced in the Dail."

Looking forward to seeing how far you get with that.

"Not enough, there are no rational reasons for keeping rothweillers in urban areas."

There are no real rational reasons for keeping SUV's in urban areas. It doesn't seem to be enough reason just to ban them outright.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 16:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I didn't realise Eric Byrne was above criticism. "

I never said he was.

"Eric Byrne was on the radio this morning and he moved away from the DCC blanket ban. (Either he supports the ban or doesn't, confusing really) "

And either you think dogs should be banned from flats or you dont. If you do you have no grounds for criticising Eric.

"He didn't feel it was enforceable on housing estates (wouldn't have anything to do with the discriminatory nature of that ban, now would it?). Yet he doesn't have a problem with flat owners being treated differently than apartment owners in the Dublin City environs. Strange that."

Not at all. You should be happy because like you Eric thinks the dogs shouldnt be allowed in flats. DCC cant stop private apartment dwellers from keeoing the dogs, but the management companies of the buildings can.

Not strange at all.

"Indeed there are many things DCC could enforce on their tenants and their record on it is appalling. Why don't you run for election for the next locals, set out your platform of what you would want the council to enforce on its tenants. (or in other words what upsets you.)"

Just because I disagree with you doesnt mean I have to run for election. Why dont you? Its not what upsets me, I am confident that the vast majority of DCC tenants do not want these dogs in their area.

"So you have no problem with discriminatory laws then?"

I didnt say that. Stop twisting my words. I want these dogs totally banned from urban areas. The flats are a good start.

""As for private dwellings, there are already a range of laws which resrict what can be done in private dwellings, eg running a business from them. Planning laws also restrict the rights of private property. New legislation could be introduced in the Dail."

Looking forward to seeing how far you get with that."

You dont say why it couldnt be acheived. Again only a tiny minority of people keep such dogs. Politicians would lose more votes by supporting the rothweiller owners.

""Not enough, there are no rational reasons for keeping rothweillers in urban areas."

There are no real rational reasons for keeping SUV's in urban areas. It doesn't seem to be enough reason just to ban them outright."

SUVs dont suddenly, without warning attack children.

author by Gerpublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 17:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I hate flaming in forums such as this, but please, please Dorothy, go and take a running jump.
You know nothing. If you had a f. clue, you would know that small dogs (unrestricted breeds are more likely to attack you.
We have a female Rottweiler (she was rescued from destruction in a pound) My cat is more dangerous than her. It's none of your business, or anyone else's, if you have the impression that the dog is too big for my house.
I don't want interfering busybodies in DCC (overstepping their statutory responsibilities) or like clueless Dorothy telling me what I can do with a pet in my own home.
You would see who is really dangerous if you try and take her away from us.
Us Irish people need to get more militant against local governments and their stupid byelaws. Try something like this in France and see what would happen.
In the meantime, let's encourage responsible ownership of all dogs.
Lets encourage DCC to do their job, and enforce the existing laws, without reverting to the proverbial sledghammer and nut approach.
Gerard Murphy.

author by Concernedpublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 17:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

well said on *all* your points Gerard - and also k9, good points.

i also wonder who will be the 'authorities' to decide if a crossbreed has a 'restricted' breed in them - as they are included in this proposed ban too.

author by Dorothypublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 17:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"hate flaming in forums such as this, but please, please Dorothy, go and take a running jump."

Thats just childish abuse.

"You know nothing. "

I know that 10 people (including 3 children) have been attacked so far this year in DCC estates by those breeds of dogs.

"If you had a f. clue, you would know that small dogs (unrestricted breeds are more likely to attack you."

Thats not true, but in any case smal dogs dont maim people for life nor do they kill children.

"We have a female Rottweiler (she was rescued from destruction in a pound) My cat is more dangerous than her."

Thats nonsense. The doberman dogs which recently maimed a child for life acted like poodles towards their owner.

" It's none of your business, or anyone else's, if you have the impression that the dog is too big for my house. "

It is my business if you have a dangerous dog.

"I don't want interfering busybodies in DCC (overstepping their statutory responsibilities) or like clueless Dorothy telling me what I can do with a pet in my own home."

DCC can adopt bye-laws which allow them to ban people from keeping certain dogs on DCC property.

"You would see who is really dangerous if you try and take her away from us."

That sounds like athreat to me. You sound anti-social. DCC can evict anti-social people.

"Us Irish people need to get more militant against local governments and their stupid byelaws. Try something like this in France and see what would happen."

You are a member of a tiny anti-social minority who keep attackdogs. There are very few of you. You have no broad support.

author by Parentpublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 18:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

DCC should ban the air heads that feel the need to have such vicious animals. After all the dogs only do what dogs do. We should expect humans to behave in a manner that does not pose a threat to their neighbours and particularly children. These breeds of dogs are capable of killing a child and it is frightening to see that usually when you a see one there is a dickhead on the wrong end of the lead.
DCC are trying to act responsibily in the circumstances.
Perhaps a requirement that persons who want to own such breeds must first go for assessment of suitability and be licenced might be a compromise.

author by Concernedpublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 18:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Perhaps a requirement that persons who want to own such breeds must first go for assessment of suitability and be licenced might be a compromise."

i agree, and here's a proposal that the DSPCA has made to the Dublin City Council

- begin -

Dublin SPCA make offer to Dublin City Council
12th July 2007

We have written again to Mr John Tierney, Dublin City Manager requesting a meeting to discuss the ban of listed breeds in their tenants homes.

Further to the recent ban on 10 listed breeds and crosses and strains for those dogs imposed by Dublin City Council for their tenants, we would like to make the following points.

A simple solution would be to require mandatory neutering, microchipping and guardianship registration for dogs placed on the list as well as the implementation of the Control of Dogs Act regulations on muzzling and leashes when in public places.

If any owner is found to be in breach of these laws then they can be identified and held accountable.

To this end the Dublin SPCA would like to make the following offer to Dublin City Council.

· We will microchip through our mobile clinic every listed breed and cross /strain. We will on behalf of Dublin City Council, maintain a database of all those microchipped dogs and owners details for those Dublin City Council tenants. Each dog owner will be provided with a disc to be placed on its collar that contains details of the microchip implanted.

· We will provide each Dublin City Council Dog warden a microchip scanner that they can use to scan any dog found straying within their estates or complexes. They can also use these scanners to check if a tenant’s dog has been microchipped. We will also provide them with access to an online database of all microchipped dogs.

· We will offer a subsidised neutering scheme for all listed breed dogs (male & female) through our Mobile Veterinary Unit.

The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive programme of education, training and legislation ensuring responsible ownership of all breeds and not the blanket ban on certain breeds.

We would again request a meeting with Dublin City Council and other interested parties to discuss the problems relating to irresponsible and anti-social individuals and their dogs and try to find a realistic solution that does not punish the majority of law abiding Dublin City Council tenants.
This offer has been endorsed by the Irish Kennel Club. Please view their website for details.

Yours Sincerely,

Jimmy Cahill

General Manager

author by K9publication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 20:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You should be happy because like you Eric thinks the dogs shouldnt be allowed in flats."

I never said that. You can't even read and understand what I wrote,. You contradict even what you said in a previous sentece in interpreting my reply. There's not much point further engaging with you.
BTW I think you are completely out of touch with how big an issue this proposed ban is in working class areas. The council area you live in must be a bit different than the one I live in.

author by Gerardpublication date Fri Jul 13, 2007 22:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dorothy, re your rant on this topic, and your response to me;
I'm not an anti social person living in a council estate in Dublin. I'm a professional person living in our own private house in Kildare. (So DCC cannot evict me!!!!!! - but nice attempt at a threat though ;-)
However, as much as some people would like this argument to be, it is not a class issue.
A person who rents a house from DCC are equally entitled under law to own a dog as I am as a private householder. DCC is overextending their remit in regards to this issue.
A lot of the arguments I've heard on this topic (in conversation and threads etc) are definitely class related. People don't want inner city residents in social housing (read scumbags!!!!) having perceived dangerous dogs. The simple truth in this argument is that dogs are socialized by people - not the reverse.
And my dog is none of you or anybody else's business - as long as it is licensed and controlled and has never posed a threat.
There are adequate laws in place for control of all dogs, however most local governments do not undertake their statutory responsibilities. Then again, councils are nowadays only interested in raising revenue not providing services. (maybe if they could only privatise this service!!!!!)
Also, the threat I make, is that I or anyone else who has one of these vicious killer attack dogs (ha ha ha) is we will not accept interference from uninformed busybodys like you (Dorothy) or your proxys in DCC.
DCC do not have any authority under national law to take a licensed dog from the control of its owner without due cause. Throwing blanket blame over a particular breed does not equal due cause.
I'm not in a minority on this topic, just an informed and concerned member of society. (apologies to Thom Yorke!!!)
So if I sound anti-social on this issue - so what? That's my perogative too!! (Basically - F.U. I won't do what you tell me - Thanks Rage against the Machine)

author by towserpublication date Sat Jul 14, 2007 13:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There are hundreds of breeds of dog which are not bred for the purpose of intimidation. There are dogs for every legitimate purpose known. Most make good companions if socialized, or if not properly trained, they still lack the equipment and instinct to do serious injury or kill human beings.

There is a small minority of breeds which are unsafe unless kept under tight and expert control and confinment. Sadly, it is these breeds which seem to attract unsocialized young males in much the same way that asault-rifles are a must-have among their counterparts in inner-city US cities.

In the US you get the tired old argument that banning assault-rifles would penalize gun-lovers who confine their use of high-powered weaponary to rifle-ranges and legitimate gun-clubs. A similar argument is being made here about these dogs. Sorry, I don't buy it. If you really like dogs and your purpose is not the projection of strutting intimidation, get a spaniel.

Some breeds should be completely banned. Pit-bulls are a prime example. Other breeds should only be allowed under strict conditions -including holding compulsory third-party insurance as a prerequisite of obtaining a dog-licence. This would in itself make the owners of German Shepards and the like more careful because irresponsibility would probably result in rendering them uninsurable.

author by Salinapublication date Sat Jul 14, 2007 13:35author email salina_covach at hotmail dot comauthor address County Kerryauthor phone Report this post to the editors

Dorothy, you have said several times about the thugs owning these dogs are causing problems, well them, maybe the law should be enforced to get these thugs put away? the law in this country is crap, these little scumbags can walk around terrorising people and there are no consequences, but instead of them being punished, innocent dogs are being victimised.

the breeds that are supposed to be banned were never bred to attack people.
german shepherds and rottweilers were bred to herd and guard livestock from wolves etc.
and the "fighting" breeds, staffies, akitas etc were bred to fight with OTHER DOGS.
even dobermans were only bred by a tax collector so he could have a scary looking dog to intimidate people with, but they weren't bred to actually attack anyone.
in fact, the IKC recommends staffordshire bull terriers as children's pets, because they are such gentle and affectionate dogs.
Have you ever really spent time around a so-called dangerous breed?
and the other night on Q&A when the guy from DCC was saying that they make a promise to DCC residents to have a safe environment to live in etc, so how is banning these breeds going to make a difference? wil it stop the other issues that actually cause people to die? guns, drugs, gangland crime etc. how many people have actually been killed in this country by dogs? and how many have been killed by other people? how many children are murdered by their own parents or abducted or killed in RTA's? Banning these dogs isn't going to make the place safer for anyone, it's just going to tear family pets away from their families and slaughter hundreds of innocent dogs who have never harmed anyone just because of these thugs who train dogs to be vicious. and is banning these dogs really going to stop these thugs? I doubt it, because they completely disregard every other law. murder is illegal but it still happens, drugs are illegal but it is still a huge business in this country.
the breeds they are trying to ban make brilliant family pets when they are brought up properly, trained and socialised. and about dogs being big, have you ever met a staffie? they are only knee-high. labradors etc can be twice that height. the only reason this ban has been attempted is because of all the media scaremongering. I bet if a collie or a lab attacked a kid it wouldn't even make the news!
In my family we have owned dobies and alsatians, and I know people who have owned staffies and akitas and they have all been lovely, gentle, good tempered family pets, so when you say these dogs just because of their breed, don't make good family pets, or only thugs keep them, it just goes to show that you don't know much about the subject.

author by Loraine Jesse - Rothburg Perm. Reg'd Rottweilerspublication date Sat Jul 14, 2007 15:55author email rothburg at xplornet dot comauthor address Box 84 Torrington AB, Canadaauthor phone Report this post to the editors

I have been dedicated to the Rottweiler breed for over 18 yrs. I raised my two children around these dogs and never had a worry or, a problem. All dogs need loving, responsible owners. All dogs should be socialized and trained. All dogs are a reflection of what their owners have put into them, really not that much different than Human Children. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous, responsible owners are the ones who make a difference and assure their dogs is an asset to them and society. Lumping certain breeds into a dangerous catagorie is just as ridiculas as saying certain races of people are going to committ crime, rape and plunder. You cannot target certain breeds and make predictions based on bad ownership. What is needed is a very good dangerous dog bylaw with very strict fines that target the dangerous OWNERS of all dogs, that are out of control. Socializing, training and RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP for ALL, breeds is what will make the difference. I was very fortunate to have travelled to Ireland to purchase a very well bred, raised and socialized puppy from Sandra Kelly. I purchased my fur baby from a responsible breeder who cares very much for the future of our breed. I continued with the training and socializing my Rottweiler as her breeder instructed. This Irish Rottweiler has many titles including passing her Temperament test and Canine Good Neighbour test. Are there any Canine Good Neighbour programs in Ireland? As it stands their is a project in the works that is encouraging people NOT to travel to Ireland, why would anyone want to go to a country where the Government forces citizens to murder their dogs?

author by Claire Duffypublication date Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:32author email rocketgal at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anyone who thinks they can decide what breed of dog someone can and can not have is going TOO FAR.
I have an American pit bull and he, of course, is the sweetest and most well mannered dog you could hope to meet. If SOMETHING must be banned, how about all the people with mismannered collies, snappy terriers and violent labradors.
Deciding a dog is evil because of its breed is no different from any other racism. What about gang crime, drugs and health!? have all these problems been sorted or did i miss something!?

Licence your dog, train it well and keep it close to your heart, banning a breed is not an option.

PUNISH THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DOGS.

author by towserpublication date Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sorry Claire, banning dangerous dogs IS an option. Your pit bull may be the sweetest dog on the planet and you may be the most responsible dog-owner in Ireland. Problem is, there is a growing unsocialized minority who see certain breeds of dog as lifestyle accessories to an unsavioury lifestyle. Sadly, your right to own a dangerous breed of dog is trumped by the right of the general public to go about their business free from intimidation and fear from these unsocialized animals and their equally unsocialized owners.

So Claire, if you love dogs (as I do) get a spaniel. It is just as loving and affectionate as your pit-bull, and even in the hands of a sociopathic owner, unlikely to kill or maim children.

author by towserpublication date Tue Jul 17, 2007 13:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To all defenders of dangerous dogs:

Some breeds of dog have the propensity to viciousness if they get into the hands of sociopathic or unsocialized owners. A few of these breeds also have the equipment to kill human-beings if they are out of control. It is these few breeds that need to be removed from society and the breeding-pool.

Yup, I know that cars in the hands of irresponsible owners also kill, however, unlike cars, there is no strong social need for pit-bulls and the like.

Unless you can find some way of guarranteeing that these breeds will never get into the hands of the irresponsible and unsocialized minority who see them as an intimidatory accessory, you just don't have an argument and your case is trumped by the right of the majority not to be intimidated by these dogs.

author by concernedpublication date Tue Jul 17, 2007 21:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

firstly there is plenty of legislation in place to insure there are responsible dog owners. these just haven't been enforcement.

there could be ( in addition) for ALL DOG OWNERS a "responsible owner programme" in place.i'd go for that myself with my own dogs.

frankly i think there should be one for parents of children too.. but that just seems one step too far for some readers :-)

in fact the DSPCA has put forth a suggestion will go a long way towards instituting these programmes within the council flats and houses:

- begin -

Dublin SPCA make offer to Dublin City Council
12th July 2007

We have written again to Mr John Tierney, Dublin City Manager requesting a meeting to discuss the ban of listed breeds in their tenants homes.

Further to the recent ban on 10 listed breeds and crosses and strains for those dogs imposed by Dublin City Council for their tenants, we would like to make the following points.

A simple solution would be to require mandatory neutering, microchipping and guardianship registration for dogs placed on the list as well as the implementation of the Control of Dogs Act regulations on muzzling and leashes when in public places.

If any owner is found to be in breach of these laws then they can be identified and held accountable.

To this end the Dublin SPCA would like to make the following offer to Dublin City Council.

· We will microchip through our mobile clinic every listed breed and cross /strain. We will on behalf of Dublin City Council, maintain a database of all those microchipped dogs and owners details for those Dublin City Council tenants. Each dog owner will be provided with a disc to be placed on its collar that contains details of the microchip implanted.

· We will provide each Dublin City Council Dog warden a microchip scanner that they can use to scan any dog found straying within their estates or complexes. They can also use these scanners to check if a tenant’s dog has been microchipped. We will also provide them with access to an online database of all microchipped dogs.

· We will offer a subsidised neutering scheme for all listed breed dogs (male & female) through our Mobile Veterinary Unit.

The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive programme of education, training and legislation ensuring responsible ownership of all breeds and not the blanket ban on certain breeds.

We would again request a meeting with Dublin City Council and other interested parties to discuss the problems relating to irresponsible and anti-social individuals and their dogs and try to find a realistic solution that does not punish the majority of law abiding Dublin City Council tenants.
This offer has been endorsed by the Irish Kennel Club. Please view their website for details.

Yours Sincerely,
Jimmy Cahill
General Manager

author by Salinapublication date Wed Jul 18, 2007 00:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Towser: are you seriously suggesting that Claire give up her pit bull who is a perfectly normal, well socialized dog and get a more ''friendly'' dog like a spaniel instead?

Personally I think the council would be providing a much safer environment for their tenants if they made sure guns and drugs weren't being used and bought and sold on their estates. they kill far more people than dogs ever have.

When was the last time anyone in Ireland was actually killed by a dog anyway? And I bet it wasn't a normal family pet (breed irrelevant)

The English girl that was killed by a pit bull, the dog was a trained fighting dog owned by a druggie.

the baby killed by the rottweilers, they were guard dogs, so why was a helpless baby left alone with 2 vicious guard dogs?

These rules should only be enforced on individuals who actually own a vicious dog, no matter what the breed. A blanket ban is just stupid.

But I suppose sending a professional dog trainer to each dog owners house to assess the dogs temperament would cost DCC way too much money, it's just easier to slaughter a few hundred innocent dogs no matter what temperament they have.

author by claire dpublication date Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

thanks salina.

In truth is the dog I kept before my pitt bull was a poodle. Famously known as ponce of a dog as far as i'm aware and as far as people assume.

Im ashamed to say my poodle DID bite several children in its life. Myself included. I found this to be because people falsely assumed my poodle wanted small children to walk up to it and grab it, and parents would show little restraint. I would try desperately to keep these people away from my dog, who was blatantly unhappy to be surrounded by children but with such a 'nice dog' it proved hard.

My pitt bull has the opposite effect. I decided to adopt a rescue dog, and ended up with a young brindled american bull. I was really happy to have a dog that grew up so sturdy. I think a greater attempt should be made to breed some of this muscle and strength into dogs like labs and collies. That would in my mind stop a lot of the collie and lab bitings (which are endlessly more common than ANY mastiff, akita, bull or alsation). Sturdier dogs are less easily hurt and therefore less easily provoked.

As a vets assistant and from my experience with dogs there is no large mental difference from one breed to the next. You can get stupid poodles and alsations as easily as you can get intelligent borzois or afghans.
No pup is born with a vendetta. Animals just don't work like that. You can't personify them too much or the issue gets confused.

This morning my dog woke up and patiently waited for me to wake up to allow him out to the toilet. then he patiently waited at the door for me to allow him back in. Then he waited by the door and watched me as I made my breakfast. he then walked over to where I keep his lead, because he could hear some dogs outside.
I brought him out and 2 10-or-so year olds were walking a beagle and a westie. My dog sat and rolled over as one of the little girls asked him politely to sit down. he was then bitten on the face by the ill mannered westie. but lowe and behold. My dog is well trained, well mannered and sturdy. He stood up so he was out of reach of the horrible little things advances.
I walked him around. People crossed the street to avoid him, and I brought him home.

Right now he is sleeping on my bed with my cat.

If you don't teach your animals to be dominant, they will understand their place in your 'pack' and look to their master for all guidance. This is how dogs are happy. They love rules and they love to obey them. Give them no rules and they will become frustrated and try to dominate others and create their own rules.

author by claire dpublication date Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

are you suggesting that if i loved my dog i would murder him and get a dog more prone to illness and deformity?

spaniels are over prone to hemophilia, spinal deformities, kidney problems, and cataracts. Other dogs like them are prone to illnesses including diabetes, spinal deformities and epilepsy.

Larger more 'normal' shaped dogs are less likely to suffer from a reduced quality of life because of their mutated breeding and deformed unnatural bodies. though diseases like cataracts and diabetes are present, they are infinitely less common than they are in these small breeds. bulls have a higher threshold for pain and therefor it can be difficult for an owner to catch something like arthritis early, but this is the only major issue in large dogs.

I believe small (deformed) breeds are cruel, and really, if we were talking about what breed of dog is 'best' it definitely would not be a spaniel. (dachshund, corgi, cesky, pug, dinmont, bulldog, vallhund )

author by maurice sheehypublication date Thu Jul 19, 2007 22:59author email sheehymossie at eircom dot netauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

why is it that only big dog are always targeted, does anyone have the % of dog bites in Ireland in which are from small dogs, i had a Yorkie for many years 12 very happy years. very happy and lovable dog, but she did not like children, she was very good with our own children never growled once in the 12 years. but as responsible owners she never got the chance to bite a child.....what I'm try to say is that I'm sure there are more dog bites from small dogs than large breed dog so were does it stop.
will the DCC bad all breeds and all types of dogs from Dublin, then will cork do the same then limerick. and so on and so on, as owners and breeds we must all take a stand against this barbaric act that if you dog is a specific breed or a certain type of breed or if it looks a certain breed you have to re home the dog or put it to sleep bullshit (sorry) but it just make me so f**KING mad..

author by towserpublication date Fri Jul 20, 2007 09:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear Maurice.

Get a grip.

No one is suggesting that ALL dogs be banned.

No one is suggesting that small dogs don't bite.

What is being proposed is that a very few certain breeds which have the equipment to kill and which have been bred for agression should be banned because they unfortunately seem to attract a significant number of unsocialized owners who use them as intimidatory accessories.

An unsocialized or mis-trained spaniel is just a badly behave dog. Au unsocialized pitbull is a dangerous menace.

author by Salinapublication date Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"What is being proposed is that a very few certain breeds which have the equipment to kill and which have been bred for agression should be banned"
no breed was ever bred to kill humans.

"because they unfortunately seem to attract a significant number of unsocialized owners who use them as intimidatory accessories."
there you go, it's the people that are the problem, not the dogs.

"An unsocialized or mis-trained spaniel is just a badly behave dog. Au unsocialized pitbull is a dangerous menace."

They would both have the ability to bite, and I'm sure a spaniel could kill a baby it it put it's mind to it just as a pit bull could. the only reason why pit bulls/bull breeds are so victimised is because they tend to cause worse injuries than dogs with weaker jaws/muscles.
pet pit bulls/"dangerous dogs" that have been trained well and are socialised are not the problem though, the only problem dogs are the ones owned by criminals, so why pick on decent people and their well behaved dogs? why doesn't the council track down the scumbags and their trained-to-kill dogs and do something about *them specifically* without ruining *everyones* lives?

author by clairedpublication date Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

and desperately want to be right. Too bad you are so sickeningly wrong. I'm sad for you that you don't have any room in your life for compassion or love.

maybe instead of sitting online, you should go to a shelter and rescue a shepherd or pitt-bull pup. Then come talk to me about how cruel and abysmal your new friend is.

DOGS ARE DOGS. and sadly, humans are humans. I also say watch your step dcc. People with love and compassion will NOT give up their friends easily. Our dogs rely on us as their masters to show them what is right and what is wrong. Our children rely on us parents to show them what honour and compassion is. Any parent who gave up a dog would do nothing but crush their childs heart and teach them to treat their animals as things. Like a dog, I believe in loyalty.

I love this country and it has always been my home and my history. My family have lived here for longer than i can possibly imagine but I know if this came to pass I would lose ALL faith my my countries flag.
I couldn't respect or be seen to endorse such an abysmal decision.

So for the sake of my dog who can't fight against this and hopefully will never know it ever happened....I'll fight alongside everyone else who is willing.

Heartlessness.

author by ainepublication date Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

i have been bitten by a pom a lab and a jack russell you who said if you want a pet get a jack russel or spaniel you dont know dogs, i know a lot of jack russels and they are quite nasty and i have a spaniel she is quiet enough now as she is young but a few older ones iv seen become narky my uncle had a rottweiller when i was growing up and alsations and they were as sweet and kind as anything. my cousin has two pitt bulls at the moment and you couldnt get nicer than them they are every bodys friends. i also had a german shepard of my own growing up i got him when i was 6 and i wouldnt of been with out him he was an angel and always made sure i was ok. i now have 4 dogs a spaniel, a collie, a cavalier and a collie cross and none of them would hurt a fly. you people against the breeds do not under stand them although i was bitten and scared by non 'dangerous dogs' i still love them all, they are the best breeds you can get the most loyal caring companions and brought up right like all breeds they can be the most placid of all the rest. ive a 1 yr old and he loves dogs hes around mine and my friends rottweiller all the time they get on so well i wouldnt have it any other way and when he is old enough to care for his own pet he will be getting a rottweiller or pitt or staff and he will be thought how to train them and respet them. its irrisponsible people who should be banned from owning any breed because any owner i know who has 'dangerous dogs' they are treated and act like babies, all angels, youd wonder how anyone would want to take peoples pets and best friends away its a discrace.

author by Martinpublication date Thu Nov 29, 2007 13:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

their pet sheep and dogs and things.

I propose that DCC support a taxidermist drive where owners can get their dogs or sheep humanely put down and stuffed. When finished they can return the stuffed pet to the owner. You could add wheels to the bottom of the pet (to move them around giving the appearance they are "on the move") but i think this will be going a bit to far.

I mean the pros of this are huge no more hairs in the council appartments, no more unsightly doggie poops in the area or in the home. huge savings on dog food and all with the added benefit of having your pet at home!

author by Michelle Clarke - Social Inclusion and Justice pleasepublication date Fri Nov 30, 2007 17:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Martin

Have you a heart at all?

Your suggestion of a taxidermist road for the humane persecution of unwanted animals as per the Rules and Regulations of Dublin City Council, indicates an ignorance that represents a small group of people.

Open your mind Martin, imagine dogs and their potential in a society that is shrinking by the day through non integration and communication.

Dogs have temperaments, they form bonds and friendships with their owner and they most definitely add to society.

Show respect to dogs and they will return respect.

Think of the work they do: they scent illegal drugs - at prisons, on boats, at An Post central post office;

In the case of the elderly, they provide company, security, companionship and heat on cold nights

Potential: They could monitor the Dail and stop rumours emerging that Ministers are taking illegal substances.

Think about Animals. In the US, and Europe, markets are being enhanced in a profitable way as people seek dog runs in New York and holidays in hotels with adequate proviso for pooches to stay.

Next time there is a Fair have a look at the Sheep Dog, the intelligence that makes them pen the sheep with such skill and capability.

People with Disabilities: For children with autism, there is a bonding that enables the child to move beyond the social inhibitions, and in the company of the dog they can enter a hostile supermarket with the relevant confidence.

The neurological conditions like ABI, ME, MS, etc. are all potential owners of dogs who are trained for walking, picking up stuff, company,

The Egyptians had their dogs. We know the dogs had a special place through the Pyramids. We see climatic change alter the artic and break up the ice, just think of the huskeys, their work with the Eskimos.....

I ask Dublin City Council to think in a more lateral way before they make these decisions. Use Google to explore and see the options that exist for our animal population. Recall that dogs are exported to the Far East to find contraband such as cigarettes, discs and this is a most important trade linkage in a world that Ireland needs to move on, and promote a knowledge economy.

A poem to consider

Why a dog wags its tail

When God had made the earth and the sky – the Flowers and the Trees

He then made all the animals
And all the birds and bees
And when his work was finished
Not one was quite the same
He said I’ll walk this earth of mine
And give each one a name’
And so he traveled land and sea
And everywhere he went
A little creature followed Him
Until its strength was spent
When all were named upon the earth; And in the sky and sea,
The little creature said ‘Dear Lord, There’s not one left for me’
The Father smiled and softly said
‘I’ve left you till the end,
I’ve turned by own name back to front And called you DOG, my friend

‘What a beautiful sentiment - Ed

Michelke

author by bonzopublication date Fri Nov 30, 2007 21:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Beautiful sentiment" and poetry are not the things which come to mind when I think of pit-bulls, rottweilers and ridgebacks.

If you really like dogs as companions rather than intimidatory accessories, a spaniel is perfectly adequate.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy