DCC & eleven restricted dog breeds

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Buddyboy said:
I think the concentration on specific breeds is easier to sell to the pubic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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'."
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gonk said:
the Israeli Veterinary Association, .... may be assumed to know a fair bit about the subject
Click to expand...

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
 

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.
 
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.
 
ubiquitous said:
Why? Would you similarly accept PR from the Irish Veterinary Association as gospel?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register