# DCC & eleven restricted dog breeds



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

I felt great sadness as I heard the news below today. As a rottie owner (along with 2 labs) I take a lot of time to correctly handle him. He is a very large and strong so I walk him on his own with 2 leads (one on his collar and one on his muzzle) and I walk the 2 labs together. I have ensured he cannot get out of the garden when I am not there as its surrounded by 10 ft walls. I love his temperment but am very aware of the stigma (other peoples) that is attached to the breed.


I am sure there are responsible dog owners like me, in Dublin who must now give up their beloved pets. I feel very sorry for them, they are now grouped with the 'people' who own these dogs only as a kind of status symbol and do not care for them properly. Luckily, I do not live in Dublin.

I would like people who have a pre-conceived thoughts on _'dangerous dogs_' to read the article below that is posted on the DSPCA website and discuss their views on the matter.

*Punish the deed, not the breed.*

9th July 2007




*Thousands of dogs condemned to die in Dublin*​ 
The Dublin SPCA today has been inundated with calls from distraught members of the public who are devastated with the announcement from Dublin City Council that they will not be allowed to keep their pets if they are on the list of eleven restricted breeds.

“We are shocked and appalled that this by law is to be implemented, at no point was there any consultation with any of the welfare organisations that work with animals every day of the year. “ said Jimmy Cahill, General Manager.

If implemented, this ban will see the destruction of thousands of family pets. The solution is the implementation of existing legislation and a comprehensive public awareness programme promoting responsible pet ownership. The current fine of €35 for not having your listed breed dog muzzled in public is simply not a deterrent. However, attempting to ban these animals is a complete over reaction.

Any dog can be trained to do anything, and the responsibility of a dog's actions should be put on the owner. 

It would be much more effective to enforce the existing laws for proper leashing and muzzling than to ban a particular breed. The law-abiding citizens that have their dogs in the public's eye are being responsible by properly socializing their dogs, as all dogs need this in order to be well balanced members of our society. 

Those that do not follow the requirement to muzzle and properly restrain their listed breed dog or properly socialize their dogs are the problems. These are the people that even if the ban is passed will continue their practices of keeping dogs without regard to the public or animals’ welfare.

Any dog without rules or discipline is a potential case for disaster. We support proper obedience training for ALL dog owners, not only "potentially aggressive dog breeds"; as any dog attack can be devastating, even the smallest dog bite can do major damage. We are also calling for the compulsory micro chipping of dogs to ensure owner responsibility.


This by-law is going to condemn family pets to death and will only be hurting the law-abiding citizens and their animals. Those that do not control their dogs will continue to do so. 

In summary our points are:

Aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed
Breed specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks
The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive programme of education, training and legislation ensuring responsible ownership of all breeds.


----------



## pinkyBear (10 Jul 2007)

Whistler I second your plight.
I don't own a dog that is listed (we have 2 a springer and a pointer) but I am a dog lover. .. We on our many walks have met many dogs that are listed as dangerous and they have been a joy, they are playful - I'll get upset if I go on... Jeffi (our springer) was attacked by a pit bull and we were very upset.. the reality was the owner was irreponsible - the dog should have been wearing a muzzle...

I must say I am deeply upset and this new law.. Would it be in breach of a responsible owner - where if they do muzzle the dog and have to have the dog put down - can they take SDCC to the european court for civil rights ...


----------



## Sherman (10 Jul 2007)

This law, just like all the other animal laws in this country, will never be enforced.

Further to pinkyBear's terrible story of his/her dog being attacked, how many times have you seen pit bulls, rotties etc. running free in parks, let alone muzzled and on a leash held by a 'competent adult' as the law states they must? How many people are ever prosecuted for not muzzling their 'dangerous breed' dogs? How many people even bother to hold a valid dog licence?

Fear not, good dog-owning citizens of Ireland, your politicians love to pass useless laws they know will satisfy the tabloids but have zero possibility of ever being enforced.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jul 2007)

whistler said:


> I felt great sadness as I heard the news below today. As a rottie owner (along with 2 labs) I take a lot of time to correctly handle him. He is a very large and strong so I walk him on his own with 2 leads (one on his collar and one on his muzzle) and I walk the 2 labs together. I have ensured he cannot get out of the garden when I am not there as its surrounded by 10 ft walls. I love his temperment but am very aware of the stigma (other peoples) that is attached to the breed.


Are they still wrecking the garden though? 

Messy garden after dogs.


----------



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Are they still wrecking the garden though?
> 
> Messy garden after dogs.


 
ha ha. thanks for the concern ClubMan. In the end I decided to split the garden into 2. I aquired the second lab when it needed a new home. 3 doggys are as easy to care for as 2, probably easier as they keep each other entertained when I cannot be with them. I have given up the plight of a 'pawprint free floor'.


----------



## Jock04 (10 Jul 2007)

On the admittedly bold assumption that this by-law is actually enforced, isn't there an appeals procedure built-in to offer some protection to those who may have had a "listed breed" as a family pet for some time without any problems, and who always have their pet correctly controlled outdoors?
Hard to imagine DCC allowing a situation to develop where RTE News are filming a dog warden tearing the family pet from the arms of a screaming child or despairing pensioner.

Isn't it?


----------



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Whistler I second your plight.
> Jeffi (our springer) was attacked by a pit bull and we were very upset.. the reality was the owner was irreponsible - the dog should have been wearing a muzzle...


 
My God that is terrible. Was Jeffi injured. These dogs ARE strong and should never be under estimated. The owner of the pit bill should be reported (to whom though) and fined. The pit bull was probably defending its owner/territory.
My rotties name is Bruno and such a gentle giant you are ever likely to meet. YET I would never leave him on his own with a child as he doesn't know his own strength. (Nor do I know what goes on in his head)
Another thing I would like to say here is if anybody has children that comes into contact with dogs, they should always call the dog to them, not approach it and invade its space. 
We need more information, not more ignorance!


----------



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

Jock04 said:


> isn't there an appeals procedure built-in to offer some protection to those who may have had a "listed breed" as a family pet for some time without any problems, and who always have their pet correctly controlled outdoors?


 
I would very much like to think so.


----------



## Jock04 (10 Jul 2007)

Whistler
That was the gist of what I half-heard on Questions & Answers last night.
Busy house at the time, so didn't catch all the details, I'm afraid.


----------



## pinkyBear (10 Jul 2007)

> Was Jeffi injured


Thankfully not badly - he had a nasty puncture wound and had to get antibiotics - but it was a mad morning as the pit bull had gotten free from the owner - and chased both dogs - he got his teeth into Jeffi as he is slower than the pointer.....

The owner - we could have shot him... he ran....


----------



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> The owner - we could have shot him... he ran....


 
Ran where? After his dog, or away? Wonder if he still owns the pitt. If he used the 2 leash system he would have had a lot more control and the dog would not have gotten free.


----------



## Leo (10 Jul 2007)

Jock04 said:


> ...isn't there an appeals procedure built-in to offer some protection to those who may have had a "listed breed" as a family pet for some time without any problems, and who always have their pet correctly controlled outdoors?


 
They said on Q&A that there would be. DSPCA representative on the program was against the move, and cited an example of an elderly lady living alone since her husband died whose only company is a rottweiler. You can stream the segment of Q&A here.

The proposed ban only applies to DCC housing. 
Leo


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jul 2007)

Leo said:


> The proposed ban only applies to DCC housing.


And public parks I thought?


----------



## whistler (10 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> And public parks I thought?


 
Yep thats correct. So what happens in this senario? 
Person that has bought their former council house owns a GSD. Still allowed to own the dog but not allowed to walk it. Correct? Or is that still allowed with a muzzle. Its all very bizarre.

I know a person that was trampled to death by a friesan. Should the friesan be put on the dangerous cow list?


----------



## gonk (10 Jul 2007)

This will be just as unenforceable as the law requiring certain breeds of dog to be muzzled in public, brought in some years ago by P Flynn as a kneejerk response to a high-profile case of a child being savaged by a dog in Britain.

There is no legal definition of a Rottweiler, a Pitbull, or any other breed. That being so, it is impossible to prove that a given dog is of a certain breed. All anyone has to do if confronted by the Council on this is to ask them to prove their dog is one of the eleven restricted breeds. It can't be done.

The original law mentioned above was so stupidly drafted, it required Bulldogs to be muzzled, when of course they have no snout on which to fit the muzzle.


----------



## grizzcol (11 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> And public parks I thought?



 as far as i know the public parks is just a proposal that they haven't 100% decided to bring in yet...at present its just DCC housing


----------



## Leo (11 Jul 2007)

Not sure on the parks bit, hadn't heard that mentioned, but when they're at it, I wouldn't be surprised if they were including this.

Other panelists said that this would not be enforced any way, three dog wardens emplyed by DCC, so probably max two on duty at any one time! There was only one person charged with a dog related offence last year, and that was for not having a license. I can't remember the figure they quoted for the total number of licenses in Dublin, but they said that it probably only covered about 10% of the dog population.
Leo


----------



## whistler (11 Jul 2007)

gonk said:


> The original law mentioned above was so stupidly drafted, it required Bulldogs to be muzzled, when of course they have no snout on which to fit the muzzle.


 
This is where consultation with an animal welfare group would have come in handy.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jul 2007)

Leo said:


> Not sure on the parks bit, hadn't heard that mentioned, but when they're at it, I wouldn't be surprised if they were including this.


Oh - I misread the reports at the weekend and it seems that they are just planning/seeking to extend the ban to parks as well. See [broken link removed] for example.


> However, the council plans to amend its bylaws to include public parks in the ban. This would mean that anyone owning a dangerous dog could not walk it in a public park, even if they lived in private housing.


----------



## whistler (11 Jul 2007)

Dangerous Dogs - God I hate that term.

Perhaps they could 'amend' their bylaws to rename the list- *Breeds that Require Special Handling* - and stop adding to the hype.

I think that genuine 'large' dog owners wouldn't mind that.


----------



## ubiquitous (11 Jul 2007)

whistler said:


> *Punish the deed, not the breed.*



Indeed. And Guns don't kill, people do...???


----------



## michaelm (11 Jul 2007)

This is likely to be a minority opinion on AAM but I don't see the need for people to own powerful dogs and I would be quite happy to see a ban on such dogs. Forcibly taking such dogs from owners seems a bit draconian; if I was implementing it I would issue lifetime licences to such dogs owners but not issue any new licences for such dogs. If an owner breached the current handling rules their licence could be revoked and the dog removed. Powerful dogs would then disappear over a few years.


----------



## nelly (11 Jul 2007)

would rather if the dog warden would respond when called and take away dogs which have no licence and prosecute owners with no licences for their pets. 
Seems like another law that is not going to be enforced.


----------



## whistler (11 Jul 2007)

michaelm, you obviously don't own one then. I like the larger dogs as they seem (to me) to be more steady and less yappy and bouncy. 

I have had my fair share of nips and bites from over-active jack russells and suspicious sheepdogs and felt that a dog with a more laid back attitude, like mine would be a more suitable companion for me.


----------



## michaelm (11 Jul 2007)

whistler said:


> michaelm, you obviously don't own one then. I like the larger dogs as they seem (to me) to be more steady and less yappy and bouncy.
> 
> I have had my fair share of nips and bites from over-active jack russells and suspicious sheepdogs and felt that a dog with a more laid back attitude, like mine would be a more suitable companion for me.


Don't own one.  I'd take my chances with an unhappy jack russell or sheepdog over an unhappy Ridgeback (bred to hunt Lions), or Pit Bull or Staff (which seem to be the dog of choice for scobies), the kind of dogs that aren't put off by pepper spray or being shot for example.


----------



## whistler (11 Jul 2007)

But why take chances with any dog atall?

I will agree on one thing with you though michaelm. A special licence to own a large dog. I would be happy to go through any training, behavior etc classes to obtain one to keep my rottie. 
However I feel quite strongly against an outright ban. Would you be happy to see breeds being wiped out?


----------



## Buddyboy (11 Jul 2007)

From what I heard on the radio, the ban was only for DCC housing. The justification of it was that these are built-up residential/estates which were not suitable habitats for large or potentially dangerous breeds. 

I am in agreement with the idea, although I don't know how to best apply it. The idea being that certain restrictions should be in place regarding certain size/breed of dogs. This would be both for the dogs sake as well as the estate occupants. For example, the idea of keeping a St. Bernard or an Old English Sheepdog in an appartment complex seems cruel to me, but I've seen it done. I've also seen a doberman kept all day in a back garden, with no exercise at all, who had the nicest temperment. 

I think the concentration on specific breeds is easier to sell to the public. As one poster said, I know more vicous small dogs than so-called dangerous breeds, my sister in laws evil bitch of a westie for example.  

Before you reply, I'd like to restate, that I don't know how best to apply the idea, but I agree with the idea of having some legislation to control pets in certain environments for the benefit of both the pets and the neighbours.


----------



## gonk (11 Jul 2007)

Buddyboy said:


> I think the concentration on specific breeds is easier to sell to the pubic.


 
To the what!?  

Seriously though, since there is no objective way of determining whether a given dog is of one breed or another, this ban is unenforceable.

The question of whether banning the relevant breeds is a "good" or "bad" thing is therefore irrelevant.


----------



## whistler (11 Jul 2007)

A Rottweiler? Why no. 

Have you never heard of a smooth haired bernese mountain dog / a big boned yorkshire terrier / a short eared coonhound / a long legged dachshund / a big fat whippet!


----------



## michaelm (11 Jul 2007)

gonk said:


> Seriously though, since there is no objective way of determining whether a given dog is of one breed or another, this ban is unenforceable.


The notion that it's impossible to tell one breed from another just seems like patent nonsense to me; they seem to have managed this amazing feat in other countries.


----------



## gonk (11 Jul 2007)

Have a look at this article on the website of the Israeli Veterinary Association, who may be assumed to know a fair bit about the subject:



The title of the article is:

"*A MATTER OF DISPUTE - THE NEW REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF ISRAEL, IN REGARD TO DANGEROUS DOGS"*

It states, _inter alia, _

"No specific gene has been found which can define genetically each of the banned breeds; therefore, the only possible way to identify the breed of a dog is by his pedigree as issued by the kennel clubs. 

In Israel, among the approximately 300,000 dogs, less than 10% are pedigreed dogs. All the rest can be defined as look-alikes or mongrels. The same situation applies to the banned dog breeds. Only a few are pedigreed dogs while the vast majority are mongrels or look-alikes. (In all recent biting events none of the dogs involved were pedigreed dogs). *Almost all municipal veterinarians who will be responsible for the implementation of the regulations are not dog breed specialists and, therefore, will be unable to define non-pedigreed dogs - at least not to a point which will stand up in court.* In other words, only pedigreed dogs that are controlled for breeding and behavior by the kennel clubs will be banned. The result being that the Veterinary Services will defeat their objective of protecting the public by aiming at the wrong dogs, letting the really dangerous dogs go uncontrolled. 

The effort to reduce the level of aggression in dogs has to be focused on the dog holders. 

Like the creation of the various breeds themselves, individual dog behavior is also 'man made'."


----------



## Sherman (11 Jul 2007)

I wouldn't worry about so-called dangerous dog breeds.

Once cats execute their long-planned take-over of the world, we're all doomed anyway


----------



## Pique318 (11 Jul 2007)

I for one would love a Ridgeback and 'er indoors wants a Bernese Mountain Dog...Temperament of both reknowned as being reserved.

Labradors are one of the most likely to attack but they're 'cute' and help blind people get about so let's not ban them ! sheesh !

Nature Vs Nurture....
A rottie or a Doberman can be as tame as kittens in the right hands with the correct method of rearing.
A sheepdog or a Lab can be an evil bas***d in the wrong hands and treated badly.


----------



## potnoodler (12 Jul 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *whistler* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=447811#post447811 
_*Punish the deed, not the breed.*_






ubiquitous said:


> Indeed. And Guns don't kill, people do...???


 

Fair point , but someone can also say that cars don't kill, people do....???
Maybe cars should be banned by DCC from their estates too.


----------



## Jock04 (13 Jul 2007)

Wasn't there some reference made (on Questions & Answers) to including cross-breeds etc in this ban, doubtless an attempt to try & avoid the "prove my dog is a Doberman" defence?

Think it's worth remembering too, that DCC have stated that because of/through the appeal process, every case will be taken on its' merits.
Hard to imagine anyone but solicitors will come out of this smiling, though.


----------



## Caveat (13 Jul 2007)

Pique318 said:


> Nature Vs Nurture....
> A rottie or a Doberman can be as tame as kittens in the right hands with the correct method of rearing.
> A sheepdog or a Lab can be an evil bas***d in the wrong hands and treated badly.


 
Exactly.  The German police use Rottweilers as well as the ubiquitous German shepherds - if either dogs were inherently unstable or unpredictable I'm sure they would have sourced another breed by now.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Jul 2007)

gonk said:


> the Israeli Veterinary Association, .... may be assumed to know a fair bit about the subject



Why? Would you similarly accept PR from the Irish Veterinary Association as gospel? Or the Irish Farmers Association? Or the Irish Hospital Consultants Association?

_"Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear"_ Lou Reed


----------



## Vanilla (13 Jul 2007)

Jock04 said:


> Wasn't there some reference made (on Questions & Answers) to including cross-breeds etc in this ban, doubtless an attempt to try & avoid the "prove my dog is a Doberman" defence?
> 
> Think it's worth remembering too, that DCC have stated that because of/through the appeal process, every case will be taken on its' merits.
> Hard to imagine anyone but solicitors will come out of this smiling, though.


 
This is the usual knee-jerk ill-thought out remark that irritates me.

First of all do you really imagine a case like this, which a solicitor will have to go to the local district court for and possibly wait several hours to deal with it is going to be financially lucrative?

Second of all, there will be people who love their animal with a genuine case who will be worried sick if their dog appears to come under this legislation and who else is going to take on their case, believe in them, and fight for them in court if it comes to it. 

It's our job to do this, yes we get paid for it, but if every solicitor only concentrated on the lucrative jobs these type of cases would be ill represented. 

Most of my colleagues ( apart from a few who specialise mainly in criminal law) do district court work at a loss for existing clients.


----------



## Jock04 (13 Jul 2007)

Chill out, Vanilla.  
I don't see my post carrying any insults.
Merely stating that this case will generate work and therefore profits for the legal profession. Sorry, but I'll take the "working at a loss" with a pinch of salt. Possibly the odd loss-leader for a regular client, but in general I'm sure your profession is recompensed for their efforts, like any other.
Anyway, don't want to de-rail this thread, so please accept that no insult was intended.


----------



## gonk (13 Jul 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Why? Would you similarly accept PR from the Irish Veterinary Association as gospel?


 
There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism, but I would be interested if you could point out any errors of fact in the extract from the article I quoted.

The point is that there is no scientifically objective way of proving a given dog is of one breed or another. This is not to say anyone couldn't easily distinguish, say, a Dalmatian from a Doberman, but that it's quite another thing to prove a dog that looks quite like a Doberman actually is one. As the article quite reasonably points out, the usual way of determining the breed of a dog is by its pedigree. If this isn't recorded, there is by definition no way of knowing whether it is of a given breed.

If you were a DCC dog warden attempting to enforce these regulations, how would you go about proving the breed of an animal you believed was covered by the ban?


----------



## Pique318 (13 Jul 2007)

if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....


----------



## gonk (13 Jul 2007)

Pique318 said:


> if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....


 
So this is actually a ban on dogs which _look_ like any of the restricted breeds? Good luck with enforcing that too . . .

I don't actually have a firm view on whether the ban is right or wrong in principle, but it is clearly from a practical point of view unworkable, like so much other half-baked and ill-thought out Irish law. In most cases, these laws aren't even expected to be enforced. They're just a way for the powers that be to give the impression of doing something useful. I'm open to correction, but so far as I know there have never been any prosecutions for failure to observe the requirement for certain breeds to be muzzled in public, or if there have been, they are certainly extremely infrequent.

What might work would be a ban on all dogs over a certain height and/or weight. At least there could be no argument about whether any given animal was affected.


----------



## Vanilla (13 Jul 2007)

Jock04 said:


> Chill out, Vanilla.
> Sorry, but I'll take the "working at a loss" with a pinch of salt. Possibly the odd loss-leader for a regular client, but in general I'm sure your profession is recompensed for their efforts, like any other.


 
Why don't you tell me what your occupation is, let me take a few pot shots at it in an ill-informed manner, tell you you're lying when you respond and then ask you to 'chill out'.


----------



## Jock04 (13 Jul 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Why don't you tell me what your occupation is, let me take a few pot shots at it in an ill-informed manner, tell you you're lying when you respond and then ask you to 'chill out'.


 
I'm already chilled.
I'm manager of a joinery company.
Fire away with pot-shots as you see fit.

Your ranting responses say a lot more about you than they do about me.
As does your turning "taking with a pinch of salt" into "telling you you're lying"
As does your snipping of my response which attempted to placate you.


Meanwhile, back to the doggies........


----------



## CCOVICH (13 Jul 2007)

Keep it on topic please-settle any differences via PM or just forget about it.


----------



## whistler (13 Jul 2007)

Do you think that this proposal will be implemented down the country? If so I may speed up my plans to build my house and move away from town.


----------



## Jock04 (15 Jul 2007)

Certainly no talk of it so far, whistler. And I'd be surprised if there was.
Sure, it's different in the country. 

However, I'm sure the councils of other large towns will be keeping a close eye on this to see how successful it is.


----------

