Dangerous Proposition or Dangerous Dogs

by Trish Meally - Friends of Animals Mullingar Tue Jul 10, 2007 01:05 meallytrish at yahoo dot co dot uk mullingar

It is discrimination against dogs of this dangerous breed act. Each person is responsible for the actions of their dogs. If we were to do this with people of different origin we are called racist. A proper caring owner keeps their dog no matter what breed under control. I have dealt with Rottweilers that are beautiful. I have a german shepherd that is the biggest softie in the world. I would figth tooth and nail to keep my dog.

by Doglover Tue Jul 10, 2007 01:08

This is utterly ridiculous. Apparently the Labour Party want to see this extended throughout the country. It is a death sentence for many family pets. I can think of scores of examples of "dangerous breeds" that are loving, gentle animals. My neighbours have a German Shepherd that has been frightened off by a local Golden Retriever! I know a Doberman that is as agressive as Bambi. I have even known Staffies that are great little pets. The problem is not with the dogs, but with irresponsible owners. There should be a mass protest over this blatant animal cruelty.

by Casper Tue Jul 10, 2007 02:12

I saw an article on the Irish Independent website, saying how John Gormley will not act concerning DCC's disgusting ruling about so-called dangerous breeds. This is outrageous. I notice the ban extends to cross breeds-how can anyone decide if a dog is an alsatian/collie or staffie/spaniel? It sounds like political correctness gone mad again

by Amelia Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:15

Dog fights and dog attacks on humans are real problems and need to be addressed, but banning certain breeds will not solve the problem. Any dog can be aggressive, it comes down to poor breeding and mistreatment. These are problems caused by people, not dogs, if you ban these 11 breeds, those people will still be out there and will simply turn to other breeds. What we need instead, and what animal welfare groups have been lobbying for, is better enforcement of the existing legislation and new legislation to tackle puppy farmers and people who through ignorance or on purpose treat their animals in a way which makes them aggressive. Cars are also dangerous in the wrong hands, but I dont see anyone proposing to ban them. You can't drive a car until you've proved you are capable, why can anybody own and breed dogs without having to show any knowledge or experience?

by Adrienne986 - Veterinary student Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:56

I am absolutely outraged to hear of these proposals, they are absolutely ridiculous. We have enough problems in this country with animal welfare already, we should try and solve those problems before creating more. Our animal cruelty laws are so outdated that nothing ever comes of any prosecutions, its a shambles the whole system. As a vet student I handle many types and breeds of dogs and would have more problems with a small yappy little dog, give me a Doberman over a Terrier any day !! And who will be the people that the animals will come to be "destroyed" ?? I most certainly wont be putting any dogs down !

by rottweiler lover Tue Jul 10, 2007 14:56

Because of all the bad write ups in papers about rottweilers I was scared to go near them untill
I visited a rescue where I met one and was left wondering if the media knew what they were talking about as he was one of the most gentle loving dogs I had ever met and I fell in love with the breed.
As I already had a male Doberman I could not rehome that one however the next one was a 5 month old bitch and she is here, and when the Doberman died in Dec. last year we rehomed another Rotti .
The only problem I have found with them is they both think they are lap dogs and adore everyone and
all the dogs we meet . I do not believe any dog should be judged by the irrasponsible actions of a few
bad owners . I would give my life for my dogs and would never give them up .
Why do councils not deal with real issues and leave poor defenceless animals alone , I would go to
the court of human rights to save my dogs, as they are a lot more human than a lot of people I know .

by poor dogs Tue Jul 10, 2007 17:22

Banning certain people from having any dog or other animal might be a better solution as of course it is always the owners fault if the dog is a problem for people. Also alot of people still dont neuter their dogs and an un-neutered dog is more vicous than a neutered one. Lots of people dont licence their dog and the 'dogs should be on a leash at all times in public' law is not implemented at all, I see dogs rambling the streets in the city centre and especially in council estates every day and these dogs are often unattended and some times they are these 'dangerous breeds' so I think if the council addressed those issues and dealth with the irresponsible people instead of banning all of these dogs then they may get somewhere. Plenty of people have these breeds of dog and look after them very well and keep them under control. Now there are certain breeds of dog locked up in backyards and on balconies in flat complexes because of this ban. Dogs that are not brought out often enough as it is and now will never get out unless of course the dog warden comes for them. The owners who are proven to neglect their dogs and abuse them and not keep them under control should be dealth with and banned for life from having another animal (which very seldom happens) and the good people who have these dogs as companions should be allowed to keep them and if the council introduced stricter measures responsible owners would comply no problem. Also ending the breeding of these dogs and phasing them out would at least be a better option than killing the ones who are already here.

by Miss dog lover Tue Jul 10, 2007 21:07

well it would mean 100's of dogs destroyed, sweet famly pets! then you just know in a few years parts of the uk would start following suit. more sweet dogs destroyed. So the black market fighter dogs would never see the light of day and these ppl who end up having badly bahaved dogs would get the next bread thay were allowd and oh look someone elce attacked by a collie or summit. can see it now STANDERD LABRADOODLE KILLS CHILD! Any thing with teeth can be trained to kill or hurt. I know some one that keeps chawawas and poms sp :D and to me altho thay are nice dogs those does are the snappyer yaper ones in my expearance. Any dog can kill a small child. so lets just ban dogs, if we had better policys in the uk for animal treatment and the baning of ppl having animals thigs could be diffrent. The dog that killed a little girl at chtistmas had been reported a FEW times, so who never notest that dog was a danger and got it away from there b4 summit whent wrong.

bring back the dog licence, make it manadtory that all dogs must be mirchiped, make the chiping a bit like car ownership v5's if you dont get have a new owners document sorted then you are still responcable. This would also help ppl work out what has happend to injerd or misstreaded dogs. It would only partaialy help but it would be a start.

kel

by MC Wed Jul 11, 2007 01:15 maicliffod at vodafone dot ie cork city 0876664488

i have two rottweillers, fully trained and just the biggest pets in the world,there just a child i'v adopted and taken as my own, i want to see the bad owners hit hard for there miss use of there animals. my dogs are going no where and i will do what ever it takes to keep safe and not discimnated against.
I say all us pet owners STAND TOGETHER on this or the next thing they'll ban our dogs and then were fighting a lossing war- lets stop this now while we can and show those nasty dog haters who there dealing with - who's with me??

by Janet O' Neill Wed Jul 11, 2007 08:06 janet.oneill at citigroup dot com 0872106877

I agree with all of this. I am an owner of a paticular breed.
But what can we do about it?????

by Dorothy Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:24

"have two rottweillers, fully trained and just the biggest pets in the world,"

Two rothweillers recently savaged a child, you might have read about it. The child will be scarred for life. Those two rothweillers acted like poodles towards their owner (a neighbours description), jumping up on her.

Your "biggest pets in the world" might be friendly towards you but they are just as liable to savage a child.

by Pitbull Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:22

While in Germany recently I got to talk to an Ex police officer on the dangerous dog problem.The solution in Germany was INMHO ingenious.As most of the problem relates to scumbags owning these dogs and not ligitimate owners.The town councils simply said that everyone can own one of these dogs if [a] they can pay for it and [b] they do a competancy test.
The dog liscense for a dangerous dog breed costs in the inner city 2000 euros,and increases per 1000 per extra dog owned. The liscense test is another 1000 euros per annum,including on the spot checks by the dog warden or police officer on the street or at home.Any bite marks,etc or savaged dogs found or brought to the vets in the area,are reported to the police immediately.
The money recived is plowed back into the local animal welfare services by the councils.
So this does disencourage scumbags from owning fighting dogs and allows the animals to recive more funding.
Trouble is trying to impliment it here is;
This is Ireland where we cant be botherd with logical thought on how to not deny people their rights and discourage the law breakers form gaining from the situation. IE the "ban it and then the problem will go away,mentality".
2] We dont have a police force,or dog wardens who have the balls or time to accoust gurriers with fighting dogs and ask for their dog liscense or why the dog has bite marks all over it.

by K9 Wed Jul 11, 2007 22:52

What about the fact that this is discrimnatory against humans. I can own whatever dog I want because I own my own house or am renting it from a scumbag landlord yet my next door neighbour can't because they are renting from the council. Nuts.
I'm not surprised that Labour are supporting penalising council tenants. The 'Fuck Fatima Mansions' brigade must be truly ruling the roost.

by PitBull Wed Jul 11, 2007 23:07

How is it discriminatory??If you are genuinely intrested in keeping a certain breed,owning guns or whatever other dangerous items.You will come up with the required liscenses,fees etc.Irrespective where you live.
The idea is to prevent juvenile scumbags buying a dog ,turning it into a killing machine and then getting away scott free if it goes ballistic or making money on it by letting it fight in dog fights,
This is what this is aimed at not wether you own a house or not.
But you are right,dont expect any help from Labour or Greens or anyone else on this issue.It is the same after any atrocity or tragedy.The lets ban it brigade and the must do somthing shower slither out of the walls and whine in the paper and then the politicans go and ban somthing ,and we are all not safer untill the next incident occurs,and the cycle begins again.
BTW ,wouldnt it be better to ban horses and sulkies off our streets???They are more dangerous in traffic,are more abused and who can own a horse in a urban enviroment???Ban the wandering horses first.

by Martina Wed Jul 11, 2007 23:47

I would like to know when they will stop this nonsense. I have a 4 year old rottie who is registered with the Irish kennel cub and the kennel Club.

He is a family pet who is loved very much by us and visitors to our house.

Have they really thought this matter out?

It's bad owners and not bad dogs that are the problem.

Why are the councils not doing more about anti social behaviour in humans, and when will they stop harassing dog owners.

Blanket unthought- out bans of any description are dangerous, in fact more dangerous than the "so called" dangerous breed of dog you are trying to ban.

Kind regards,
Martina

by Jacqueline Fallon Thu Jul 12, 2007 00:44

In my opinion, it is humans that have made these dogs vicious, through over breeding and bad training. The majority of the dogs declared ‘dangerous’ are not dangerous at all in the right hands. I pity those elderly people who love their dogs who are at risk now of losing their only constant companion. I hope that every case will be looked at sensitively and individually, and that only dogs that are let run wild or can't be controlled, should be confiscated from their bad owners.

When I heard that dogs of a certain breed were going to be confiscated from their owners (being declared unfit by people who should be declared unfit), a poem by Oliver Goldsmith came to mind. The poem is about a selfish, corrupt man, who had all the outward appearance of goodness and of doing good deeds, but inside was as corrupt as Hell, and the unfortunate dog that bit him.

An extract from “An Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog” by Oliver Goldsmith

A kind and gentle heart he had,
To comfort friends and foes;
The naked every day he clad,
When he put on his clothes.

And in that town a dog was found,
As many dogs there be,
Both mongrel, puppy, whelp and hound,
And curs of low degree.

This dog and man at first were friends;
But when a pique began,
The dog, to gain some private ends,
Went mad and bit the man.

Around from all the neighbouring streets
The wondering neighbours ran,
And swore the dog had lost his wits,
To bite so good a man.

The wound it seemed both sore and sad
To every Christian eye;
And while they swore the dog was mad,
They swore the man would die.

But soon a wonder came to light,
That showed the rogues they lied:
The man recovered of the bite,
The dog it was that died.

by Ed Thu Jul 12, 2007 02:59

Weak laws, stupid laws and non existing laws. This is Irelands laws on Dogs.

Take a look below at the Anvil website for some other reasons why Dublin City Council are using this ban. The table didn't copy well so use the links below for the stats on dog with licences, in pounds etc and a second link with a table of population from the cso

http://www.anvilireland.ie/fulcrum.html?ep=80

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popofeachprovcountycity200...6.htm

Here are the statistics for dogs and dog control in both the Dublin area and nationally. Dublin City has the highest number of households and dogs in the Dublin area, yet it has issued less licences than South Dublin and only 2,356 more licences than Dunlaoghaire/Rathdown despite having almost three times as many households

Despite this:

* DCC have issued less dog licences, 6,798 compared with 8,818 in Dublin County. Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown issued 4,442 and has almost three times as many households as DCC
* Dublin City issued 224 fines compared with 606 in Dublin County and 548 in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
* Of these, only 51 were paid in Dublin City compared with 106 in Dublin County and 402 in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
* Dublin City had only 23 prosecutions compared to 73 in Dublin County and 22 in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
* Dublin City managed to get only 1 conviction compared to 37 in south Dublin and 16 in Dun Loaghaire/Rathdown

This is the real reason for the problems being experienced. This is the real reason why thousands of dogs are facing destruction. Don't let your dog suffer becuse of the incompetence of Dublin City Council and its' agents.

by Ed Thu Jul 12, 2007 03:10

Hi again,

just 2 other things on I've noticed on the Anvil site, one is an online petition to remove the ban

http://www.petitiononline.com/anvil999/petition.html

and secondly know the law on the below link, it starts as below but for the full law hit the link

http://www.anvilireland.ie/fulcrum.html?ep=66

11th July, 2007

Everyone affected by Dublin City Councils' ban should be familiar with particular sections of the relevant legislation i.e. the Control of Dogs Act, 1986. There are no 'dangerous' or 'banned' breeds in this country.

Restricted breeds as outlined in the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Breeds), 1991 are the 11 breeds listed by Dublin City Council.

These dogs are not banned under the law! Dublin City Council and its' wardens can only enforce the existing legislation. Know your rights, don't be bullied, if you need any other information, contact us on 0861999512 or info@anvilireland.ie

A dog warden cannot enter your home to seize a dog. If a warden tries to gain entry, call the Gardai or seek legal advice.

Know the law. If you are compliant with the law, i.e

*
you have a dog licence,
*
your dog is muzzled and leashed when out in public
*
your dog has a collar and identity tag
*
your dog hasn't caused a nuisance or attacked either people or other animals

Your dog cannot be seized.

by Dorothy Thu Jul 12, 2007 16:23

The council can impose conditions on their residents. The Council does have the right to access houses to carry out necesary repairs and to prevent anti-social behavious from taking place. Dublin Council may rule that keeping such a dog amounts to anti-social behaviour. The right of DCC to impose such conditions has been upheld by the courts in the past, including the right to evict anti-social tenants.

This will not become a political issue because only a tiny (albeit vociferous) minority keep such dogs. Politicians know they would lose more votes by supporting this anti-social minority.

by billy idle Fri Jul 13, 2007 01:16

Reminds me of the actions of Clare CoCo in banning people walking dogs on deserted beachs in the west of the county!! - This is why Ireland will never be the country it could and should be - too many gombeens at the top running things!!!

by Martina Fri Jul 13, 2007 18:55

I live in a remote rural part of Ireland.
My 2 dogs, one of which is a rottie, have six acres of a fenced area to run around undersupervision.
I originally come from a corporation housing estate in Dublin.
My point -
The Labour Party want to enforce this as a national law, how dare these gang of failed policitians try to enforce this law. How dare they!
Shame on you for upsetting so many families who love their pets.
Why not start with the people who have no dog licences, the people who do not care for their dogs .ie. annual booster injections, and the people who let their dogs run wild.
Shame on you again, but remember the next election is never far away in Ireland, and for the record I will be reminding all dog lovers who it was who tried to enforce this law.
I just wonder is this legal under European law?

Kind regards

Martina

by B.S. Fri Jul 13, 2007 20:31

The most ridiculous law I've ever heard. I am so angry to hear that those uneducated inbred idiots in the council would make such a law. I live in a council estate in Wexford with a terrier cross and a show quality Doberman. Its the few lowlife scumbag owners that are dangerous, not the dogs. I hope the ban dosn't come down here, if it does I will move to live with someone else or something. There is solid fucking evidence to say that NO BREED OF DOG IS ANYMORE DANGEROUS THAN THE NEXT. There have been more attacks by Golden Retrievers and even more by terriers than by Rottweilers. I hope all the stupid son of a bitch's who had anything to do with that law die a very painful death and burn in hell for the rest of fucking eternity.

by towser Sat Jul 14, 2007 21:12

Isn't it just fascinating that the same old arguments that the gun lobby in the US trot out to justify their right to own assault-rifles are being used by the rottweiler and pit-bull set to justify their right to keep dangerous dogs.

These people seem to miss the point that these dogs are attractive to a certain type BECAUSE they are frightening and intimidatory. Moreover, no more than assault rifles, the right to own pit-bulls and the like has no over-riding social justification.

If you like dogs get a spaniel. They can do everything a rottweiler can do except kill children and intimidate your neighbours.

by PitBull Sun Jul 15, 2007 18:24

First off Towser,you cannot own an assault rifle in the US,without alot of Fed backround checks,paying alot of money to buy and keep.An assault rifle is a weapon capable of full auto fire.
You can own a semi auto rifle,no problem apart from asshole states like California,or Washington DC,and a few other places.However the arguement is facile.A gun does not get up and start shooting people,neither does a dog attack people unless it is trained to do so.Yes there are certain types who own these dogs for that reason.But if it was highly taxed,liscensed at a high price,regulated with spot checks etc.You would see the genuine people intrested in keeping these breeds properly and not scumbags.Same in the US with machine guns.It costs so much to own one that only genuine collectors own them[Somthing like 5K PA]. 5k will get you alot of sawn off shotguns and Saturday Night Specials.
Anyway,I can get A lab retriver and make it a man killer...Or own a Timberwolf here with no fear of liscenses or banned lists.Guess what the bad guys will go for next????
Banning things never has worked.

by Martina Sun Jul 15, 2007 22:23

Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Towser,

I was not aware that Spaniels had rubber teeth, or is this a new breed of dog that the Irish Kennel Club has not heard of.

Since you are an expert on guns in the USA, did you not realise that they give them out free when you open up a bank account in certain states.

We can go on giving comparsions till the cows come home, maybe we should ban children, they do a lot of biting or is it only certain types.

What is going to be the next ban...look at yourself are you disabled, a smoker, over weight, etc? A blanket ban of anything that suits oneself is always great, but what happens when it effects you?

Think carefully the next ban could be to ban you.

A proud Rottie owner.

Martina

by PitBull Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:59

That is another myth put out by Mr Fatman Moore in his Bullshit opinionary Bowling for Columbine.
If people still belive any BS that fat ass spouts about anything.I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn NYC,going cheap.

by Martina Tue Jul 17, 2007 22:40

Hi Pitbull,

Lets stick to the topic and play nicely, or we might give the dogs we are owners of, a bad name. The debate is about the ban of these breeds. The suggestion that we pay thousands of euro for a licence is typical of our money centred society. Having thousands of euro to spend on any dog does not make you a better owner. In fact you would be creating a class society of dog ownership.

In terms of the Brooklyn bridge being for sale, with bills mounting for the Bush government they will probably have to sell the bridge to pay for the war they want to start in Iran.

Look, lets get our point across that the so called dangerous breeds are only dangerous in the wrong hands, just like all breeds of dogs, including the Yorkies, who can be quiet nippy around the ankles.

Like I said before all blanket bans all dangerous, even more dangerous than the so-called dangerous breeds they are trying to ban.

Regards,

Martina

by martina Sat Jul 28, 2007 01:24

i aquired a german shepard at 4 months old and at first he was shy and nervous but with alot of love and atteniton he has become so lovable and careing and he sleeps at the end of my bed everynight and is first to wake me in the morning with a sloppy lick.why is it that private houses across ave are allowed keep these beautiful dogs and because he lives in housing in council housing estate he has to be sentenced to death which is not just wrong that a beautiful loving and healthy dog has to suffer over a stupid law that discriminates people who dont live in private houses the idea has clearly not been thought through properly and probley came from someone who is evil and hates animals. but also people who love dogs and take care of them properly are going to suffer aswell a dog is mans best friend and is a loving memeber of the family who protects and loves there owners so how can anyone to this to any animal its cruel and evil we should take a stance and march or protest against the people who to this will never be satisfied and if they succeed they will just go on to other dog breeds and then maybe other animals but not we all come together as one something needs to be done about this as soon as possible.

by towser Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:13

The issue that all the name-calling abuse and threats is avoiding is the manifest fact that ASBO types are using certain potentially dangerous breeds of dog as a must-have intimidatory accessory.

I have a RIGHT not to be intimidated and my children go in fear of these dogs.

I appreciate that pit-bulls, assault-rifles, and samuri-swords are wonderful things in the hands of responsible owners. The problem is that many less-than-responsible types sem to gravitate towards these things and there is no practical way of stopping the abusive use of these dogs by an unpleasant minority other than banning the breeds.

The right of the public not to be intimidated (or the "right" of these animals to breed) is trumped by your imagined right to own a pit-bull.

Simple really.

by Pit Bull Sat Jul 28, 2007 13:03

that these wonderful things are not abused is by[1] not banning them and then making them evermoreso desireable to own.[2] by making them cost a fortune to own,so that "ABSO types " will think twice about having to fork out three weeks worth of dirinking and drugs money to own a dog,that can be inspected at any time of day or night by the law to see if it is in good condition,has no fight marks etc on it,and that they have to produce insurance to keep said dog or item.
Put it like this;are you going to own a ferrari in scumbag ville???where the main employment is drug dealing,GBH,and drivebys.If you do you are going to stand out and get plenty of unwelcome attention by the cops and your jealous neighbours.ergo the same with owning a pitbull in that area.
If however you live in normal ville,where the people are lawbideing,have work,and look after their property,and persue nomcriminal lifestyles,and you want to breed pitbulls as a hobby,and are not selling them to scumbags but other breeders,have insurance,pay an exhorbritant liscense etc.You are not going to need them for protection,dog fighting etc.IOW the more it costs and is regulated the safer it becomes.As I said before it works fine in Germany,where no one denies you the right to own a dangerous dog,just so long as you can afford to do so and accept the possibility of state intrusion in your life at any time.Somthing criminals dont really want,hence the reason German ABSO types went off the idea of owning dangerous dogs.Banning things has never worked.Very simple really.

by Ellie Mon Jul 30, 2007 16:06 elia.f.v at hotmail dot com

Hi Everyone,

I have read many comments against this terrible new law, I own a German Shepherd and my family has own GS since i can remember, they are lovely pets, they are even guide dogs for the blind and police dogs also, how can they be a naturally dangerous dog?
Because this is what the banned dog list claims, that this 11 breeds are born agressive!! (Does this sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me?) Just because a bunch of scumbags, that don't care about their pets, that mistreated or bad trained them, the fact that those poor pets are agressive doesn't mean that all them are!

I can't even imagine the pain of the pet owner families living in the DCC estates thinking about what can happend!!

This law is completely unhuman, punish the bad owners not the good dogs!

I would like to organize a protest against this, a collection of signatures or something similar to show the DCC that we are completely against this, does anybody agree with me?

Regards

Ellie

by Salina Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:49 salina_covach at hotmail dot com

"have two rottweillers, fully trained and just the biggest pets in the world,"

Two rothweillers recently savaged a child, you might have read about it. The child will be scarred for life. Those two rothweillers acted like poodles towards their owner (a neighbours description), jumping up on her.

Your "biggest pets in the world" might be friendly towards you but they are just as liable to savage a child."

Let me guess, you read that story in a tabloid? The only thing those papers are good for is lining kennel floors!

Those two rottweilers were guard dogs, right? I think there is a bit of a difference between a trained-to-be-nice family pet and a trained-to-attack guard dog!

have you ever even spent time around any of the so-called ''dangerous breeds''? maybe if you actually did instead of believing everything you read you would see the REAL dogs, the real SOFTIES. not the ''evil devil dogs'' as a certain tabloid newspaper called them recently.

In the last few days I have seen several people walking beautiful big rotties in prime condition, so at least not everybody is deserting this lovely breed.

by petbull Mon Sep 10, 2007 01:24 ger_kavanagh at hotmail dot com

any1 who has ever owned a pitbull or staff will know that they are the most co-dependent dogs ever, all they want 2 do is please their owners. what happens is that this trait is exploited by the bad little pr..ks that get 2 own them. If a dog thinks that he will get loads of praise for eating every cat or dog he comes in contact with, that dog will attack every cat or dog he comes in contact with! If these same people are encouraging this with people the dog just thinks this is what his master likes him to do, and all he wants is to please his master! I have 3 petbulls living in my house with my partner and my 2 kids and they are babies, I walk them late at night because people stare at me, and judge me as a scumbag, when i have them out walking in the day time, these are the same people who have never owned one they just read the rags that profit from from the bad press in which they have created. Its sad really, its not fair that responsible owners like myself should suffer the loss of family members because of bad owners. By banning the dogs, the same little dickheads who get them a bad name will now only love the fact that they are owning an illegal dog. This is not the solution micro chipping and proper licencing is the answer, this way if the dog is causing proplems its the owners fault, owners should be held responsible. I have been around these breed of dog since i was very young i do know my breed and i welcome any authority to see my dogs with my family, they are not the killer posesed beasts the press would have you believe.

by Lilly C - (DNBI) Sun Oct 14, 2007 21:39 dnbi at eircom dot net 0868783732

Young boy attacked by stray dog in Dublin
Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:37

A 10-year-old Dublin boy is in hospital awaiting surgery after being attacked by a dog this afternoon.

Edward Fogarty was playing in the front garden of his home on Captain's road in Crumlin at around three o'clock when a black Labrador type turned on him.

Neighbours say the dog appeared friendly and had been around the area for the past day or so.
A neighbour had to pull the dog off the boy before calling on ambulance.
He is due to undergo surgery at Our Lady's hospital in Crumlin at 9 o'clock tonight.

************************************************************

Another child yet again attacked by a dog that should not have been roaming around the streets with out its owner, not a dog Worden around to take the stray before these incidents occur as we only have 3 dog wardens in the hole of Dublin and they don't work weekends its a joke. Same thing as the little boy in edenderry both incidents could have been prevented. Maybe they will listen now that its not a breed problem that any dog is capable of causing harm not just restricted breeds. Responsible ownership is the only way to deal with this problem, the laws need to be enforced or will they just add another breed to this list????? This is seriously out of hand and something needs to be done fast before another child is attacked or even killed. Deed not Breed Ireland has been trying to offer there expertise to this issue for some time now and have been knocked back because people think that certain breeds are only capable of attacking and them breeds should be ban, we have been trying to promote responsible ownership and awareness for some time now which has falling upon deaf ears. i firmly believe that if we were taking seriously and people would except our expertise and help on this matter it would work more effective as the banning of certain breeds has not worked in other country's nor will it work in Ireland . Banning breeds give no guarantee that children are safe and does not deal with the real problem witch is irresponsible ownership and lack of knowledge..

(If education on dogs was promoted this little boy's mother might have known not to let her son play with a dog she new nothing about.)

WE NEED THEM TO LISON NOW!!

by Fido Sun Oct 14, 2007 21:52

The dog hasnt been caught yet. No one knows exactly what type it is. But you are making a good case for the banning of all dogs over a certain size from residential areas.

by Catlady Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:04

Fido this problem has NOTHING to do with either size or breed. Were a small dog like a Jack Russell, for example, to attack a child the damage they could do would be enormous. The only way to solve this problem - of people and particularly children being attacked - is the promotion of responsible ownership, enforcement of the laws surrounding ownership, and of course education.

I myself have two dogs. Neither leaves the house without me or without being on a lead. One is for some reason, deathly afraid of children and prams. If we are out walking and I see either coming along the footpath, I cross over. I hasten to add that she has never bitten anyone or attempted to - her reaction is to cower in fear at the sight of a child. However, any scared animal (including humans!) can be unpredictable and as a responsible owner, I will not take that risk. And she is a small dog - a Jack Russell. It's simple common sense (and the law!) to have your dog under proper control at all times. If all owners were to do this, if they were obliged to by law, incidents such as the one mentioned above would simply not occur.

No matter how many breeds are banned, no matter what size restrictions are introduced, attacks on children will never stop until those ignorant humans are educated and the law requiring all people to have their dogs under proper control is enforced with harsh penalties. A large fine and/or a prison stay might make those people who so carelessly place children in danger think twice before letting their dogs wander.

by leigh Sat Oct 20, 2007 21:49 ligishjvk at hotmail dot com

I am the proud owner of 2 beautiful rottweillers and all my family have rottweillers since the time i was a child.

We just love the breed such regal loving animals. I can honestly say that I would never wish to own another breed. I am the mother of 3 children the youngest being 2 and I think myself and my husband are very responsible owners.

Our dogs are registered, microchipped, vaccinated ect. and never leave the house without a lead. We have had obedience training for them feed them a dry diet do not hit them and do everything we possibly can to adhere to current legislation.

But as the saying goes GIVE A DOG A BAD NAME!!!! Please dont punish genuine lovers of this breed for the actions of idiots.

I would freely have our dogs undergo any inspection to prove what glorious animals they are.

Keep fighting this ridiculous assumption that we are incapable of rearing our animals responsibly.

by Prison Sat Oct 20, 2007 23:27

Why then have the Co. Councellors employed Rocky ( A Dog) to do their work for them ?
A womans best friend is her Dog
the 6th Sense what we do not have.

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice and Ethics Mon Oct 22, 2007 21:41

Intuition or 6th Sense

Women and Dogs share same, while men either use it say for hunting or abuse it say to train dogs to fight as per the recent Panorama coverage of a GAA player!!!

What about the power of the media here!! Panorama thought it worthwhile to research what was happening to dogs in Ireland, often stolen dogs i.e. fighter dogs but we hear nothing about dog fighting in our media......why? Are the GAA too supreme not to tackle such an issue........I mean promote dogs, their skills like in the case of Rocky and the drugs in the prison cache....then the companion dogs who support our faulty ridden with inequality health system......

I can imagine the councillors taking note of the bad behaviour of dogs not owners. I am sure top of their agenda is how do we effectively solve this innocous problem. What better than a blanket ban over say 15 breeds of dogs with no exceptions. Easy Peasy decision. Minimum costs and little or no thought for the animals or owners. Typical of what is to be expected. Little room for corruption here i.e. apart from fighting and Grey Hound Racing.

Surely, they should take the matter a little more seriously and look at say a balance sheet in the case of Rocky who sniffs out drugs worth ex. which enables the Criminal Assets Bureau boys to evaluate cost and take the acclaim.

Dogs provide a myriad of functions.

Co Councillors are supposed to provide a democratic range of informed functions based on research, decisions, approprirate license fees and sanctions.

A few points for people to ponder on.

The legal profession and First Past the Post. Animals are prey too often greedy people who receive a little nip and run to the solicitors and the courts to sue........Imagine the costs involved in such cases.....I question how fair the assessment is? Nobody is vetting the Vested Interest of the Dog and owner and Equity.

Dog Insurance and Dog Licence:
The licence costs something like 12 euros....from the post office. Tell me if this sounds an effective control system by Government to apply rules and regulations, that are effective...... I cannot see how......To me it goes back to the point made by an earlier posting of a Blanket Ban - a laziness..

To Prison:
Maybe you are right about the 6th sense but there is a seventh perhaps between men and dogs........they are faithful friends and engage in a delicate balancing act at times.

Today in the Examiner Paper the section on Health features dogs and their amazing gifts with the human being......the dog has redressed the social deficits of the child with autism, allowing him to engage with society, in a way that he is entitled to.

What about a Dog to supervise the Dail?

Michelle Clarke
Quotation
Language
'Explore the idea of what the language that women speak would really be if no one were to correct them'
Helene Cixoux, contemporary French feminist philosopher

by Kevin T. Walsh - Social Justice and Ethics Thu Dec 06, 2007 21:39

Michelle

I like your comments about dogs and agree with most of what you say.

Having worked a number of years ago with autistic children, I am delighted to see that Would You Believe next Sunday night is about an autistic boy and his mother, with a Guide dog to help him cope with his world. For autistic children, social interaction is so very difficult.

Science is about learning and there are so many good people out there willing to find answers to deal with problems and in particular the neurlogical problems.

Kevin T. Walsh

Gandhi
'Live as if you are going to die tomorrow but learn as if you are going to learn for the rest of your life'

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice and Ethics Wed Dec 12, 2007 01:06

How are the City Councillors and their brief to reduce the so so called hostile breeds.....those with control.

Surely there is a better way. Can these dogs be retrained and going to the Elderly?

What about Sinn fein /MEP Mary Lou MacDonald out in the MEP.

I support Rocky and his mates and their trips to the local prisons ..... they had a task but with small reward and have found drugs, but also mobiles and this has to be positive.

I think large companies like RTE, the Dail, ought to choose say Springer Spaniels to greet - hello to the Ministers and Hello and a little more if they tract the scent. This is empowered action and abating at the same time. I constantly have writtten to speak about dogs in pubs but now RTE will test their commitance but being upftont and having a few tasks snapped on Camera of a successful dog, it never be.

As for the pubs in town. I live in Dublin 4 and what fascinates me is the fall off in busy at certain times. What about a friendly boxer who just snoops around.....causes and a slim shame and an entre to the courts.

It is my believe that certain poples and restaraurts are coocaine targeted, those that cook the food, but nobody eats. Look out for the signs and then get thinking. Don't waith for a Trip to A % E - when you do this you are selvishly taven a bed that a violently hill person may need. When you regain the conscience this will not make you a happier.

Put the Resonsibilities back on to the Publicans, the Restaurants, - lret them make sure there is no snorting in the pub loo - let the boys walk the dog in for evidence...and work on to procecution.

Change attitudes again in pubs......Make them warm, reduce the costs of drinks for Oaps.......and afternoon breaks, make it cheap for the older or disabilities people. Allow dogs to accompany their owners into pubs, the person may rely on the dog for health reasons, like the autisitic child who finds social relations very hard........The Irish School of the Blind are coming to the fore here that is if you watched the excellent. Would You Believe show on Sunday Night - about Autism and how the trained dog facilitated relationships in a pleasant way.

It is just an extension of an idea.........Others like Paws, DSPCA, Crufts, Assistance Dogs, all have a part to play in a country that exterminates them only after a day.

by staffie lover Sun Feb 28, 2010 09:42 kingro619 at hotmail dot com

dorothy you talked about two rottweilers mauling a child. these dogs were trained to be guard dogs! any dog can be vicious if trained to. the things you read in tabloids are just media propaganda! one of the articles said 'amount of dog bites increases'. the picture was of a staffordshire bull terrier even though as you read on it said nothing about statistics. i researched dog biting statistics and the top 3 dogs with the most number of bits were - west highland terrier, jack russell and labrador. yet the picture was of a staffordshire bull terrier!? also i bet you never read about the staffie that was attacked by a labrador,the rottweiler that saved its owner from a savage dog or the pitbull that took 3 bullets for its owner they just tell you what you want to hear you cant take them too seriously! yes if a rottweiler was trained to be a fighting dog it could do more damage than a chihuahua trained to be a fighting dog but thats the reason why there is the restriction saying you must keep them on a short leash etc. there is no reason why a ban on innocent dogs should be taken.
i know one person with an american satffordshire bull terrier, a person with 2 rottweilers, thre people with staffies, two people with german shephards and one person with an akita. they are lovely dogs and just on of them barks at other dogs. staffies for example are nicknamed 'the nanny dog' because of their affinity for children and their family and arent supposed to be great guard dogs as they can great strangers as a long lost friend. you will find that out on almost any website about them. alot of staffies end up in pounds because some people buy one because they look tough and then just get love from them instead of a vicious dog. staffies just have a bad name because of their history of dog fighting. i mean how can you blame any dog for being vicious when thats how the owner brings them up. its just like children they learn from their parents/owners. Of course though any dog shouldnt be left with very small children as they could see the baby as another animal as they are at equal heights or smaller. the articles i read about dogs attacking children usually have ''the child was in the room with the dog and i heard a scream''. im sorry for anyone whose been attacked by a dog (i was when i was a child by a collie!'') but you should never leave a very young child alone with a dog of any sort. Also 'lock jaw' the commonly known saying that states that pitbulls jaws lock on once they bite has been proven wrong by scientists.
and that was a greatpoint about not killing all humans because some are dangerous. the dcc ban should not be. some people have no one but their dog for company and thats just cruel to take it from them. it should be underground dog fighters and people who train their dogs to be vicious that need to be stopped. please prevent any further bans to go ahead.
here are two pieces of writing taken fro mthe internet about the staffordshire bull terrier - ''This, coupled with its affection for its friends (and children in particular), its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, make it a foremost all-purpose dog It has been said that "No breed is more loving with its family'' ''The breed is naturally muscular and may appear intimidating, however, because of their natural fondness for people, most Staffords are temperamentally ill-suited for guard or attack-dog training.''
BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED!

by hydroponic john Sun Feb 28, 2010 14:30

The pressure to get the ban was coming from the gardai, I thought everyone knew that. Drug dealers keep these dogs as a deterrent. If the gardai come knocking at the door looking for drugs they have to get past the rott first. A dog can’t read so wouldn’t know that the gardai has a warrant and entitled to search the house under whatever law it is they use.

From around the start of the nineties the gardai were getting worried about this . It was starting to become a bit of a dilemma for them - the dealers were laughing at them .They couldn’t even allow Paul Williams to express their concerns for them in case the word got around that ,in the course of their duties , officers were regularly getting bitten and intimidated by these mutts and that there was nothing much they could do about it . A dealer could apologetically explain to the court how he lived in a rough estate (never a gardai around when you need one, your honour) and the dog is for protection against all the scumbags wanting to break into his gaff (sorry house your honour ). If the dealer hits the cop he gets done for it big time ,but if the cop gets bitten by the dog , the owner can’t get done for it .Maybe the gardai might get an order to put the dog down but that’s about all they could do .

The council doesn’t enforce the ban- they know that it would be virtually impossible. But now if a case goes to court that involves a member of the gardai getting bitten by a banned dog on a DCC property, a dealer can’t blame it on the dog seeing that it’s against his tenancy agreement to have a dangerous breed on the property in the first place.