DCC & eleven restricted dog breeds

whistler

Registered User
Messages
120
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.
 
Last edited:
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 ...
 
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.
 
Are they still wrecking the garden though?

Messy garden after dogs.

 
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'.
 
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 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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
...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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited: