>The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds"

What a joke that is. ALL dangerous breeds - that would wipe out the entire canine population then! I read something earlier stating that "A survey of dog bites in Britain showed that Golden Retrievers were actually the most common attackers".

A couple of good articles about banning breeds here:

http://www.endangereddogs.com/DDAStatement.htm
http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/domino/newsbody.asp?article_id=333

The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds"

They are not dangerous breeds!!  Its incompetant owners!! Never in my lifetime have I seen a human aggressvie Staffordshire Bull Terrier!!!!!!

Does this mean Dublin airport will not longer be patrolled by GSD police dogs!! or the forces can no longer use them???

Absolutely ludicrous

>Does this mean Dublin airport will not longer be patrolled by GSD police dogs!!

I doubt if Dublin Airport is council property! ;)

But I agree these breed-specific laws are ludicrous.

There IS a reason...

The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds" due to the increasing numbers of complaints from tenants and because of the legal implications associated with an attack taking place on one of its properties.

and THAT has no basis in fact

Have there not been increasing numbers of complaints then?

Have there not been increasing numbers of complaints then? 

no-one has yet produced stats to support that no...

Regardless of whether complaints or incidents have increased they will be more aware, in this day and age, of the legal implications, as the statement indicates. 

Has anyone produced stats to refute it?

>The council are starting with council homes and public areas. They are starting with the list of dogs in the link.

Not sure how it works in Ireland but in the UK it would take parliament to ban dogs of certain breeds generally or, a least, amend the DDA to include them.  A council, of course, can do what it likes with their own properties because they are, in effect, the same as a private landlord.
I don't think they would take a step like this lightly there must be history behind it.

Not often we agree Isabel :-)

I at this exact moment am not sure which way I would support it BUT I do believe the council really are only doing what " most" private landlords are doing and have been doing for years. I personally do not allow pets of any sort in my houses. I have 4 properties that I let out just now. Most of my Private Landlord freinds also do not allow pets of any sort in their houses.

I genuinely don't believe the decision has just been taken due to the Dangers of the dogs but also of the amount of £ that is spent fixing the damage to property what some ( and there is a lot) council tenants allow to happen in the house of which they don't even own.  
My husband is managing a large contract for a council where new kitchens are being installed.  He has been really really appalled at the state people keep their houses and the damage done by animals.  I know it is not everyone but it is a very common concept people look after things better when they own them and have paid for them.

I think that you have got it about right, Blue :)

Daisy

Very worrying.  I wonder how well ti will be enforced as is there not a compulsory muzzlign order for most larger breeds brought in some years ago????

Maye a compromise and answer would be to ban these breeds if the council so wishes for all new tenancies, but for existing tenants and exemption certificate could be issued if  certain conditions were met as to care, temperament and no complaints of aggressive behaviour.

After all Landlords are entitled to stipulate whether livestock or pets are allowed.

The Pet would have to be identified by chip or tattoo, and the exemption would only last that dogs lifetime.

Definitely a worrying trend, after all who decides which breed will be on the list?  I think a while back Italy put Newfoundlands on their dangerous dogs list.  (thats stopped me retiring there!)

It appears that Dublin council are concerned about litigation if anyone is attacked on their property, probably because they let dogs on it.  :rolleyes:

Another fine example of this sue happy society which is developing.  Just wait, it will hit the UK too.

Its a pity the council cannot just prosecute the people involved. I live near a council estate and yes there are the German Shepherd and two Rotties tied up in a garden that have never been outside it since the day they were bought and the little staffy bitch who always looks like she is having or has had pups roaming about  but there are also the owners who I see everyday walking their dogs in the park.
The only good thing I could see coming out of it is the irresponsible breeders of such breeds but as someone has already said they would just change their breed.

>Its a pity the council cannot just prosecute the people involved

Certainly I agree but this won't stop possible future attacks if the council don't take steps to minimise their liabilities. 

I have a suspicion this is about minimising liabilities in the event of litigation due to someone being attacked by a dog on council property.  Banning certain types of dogs shows that the council are taking steps to reduce risk I suppose.  It's a worrying trend but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest; this is the way society is going sadly. :-(

Surely the council would not be responsible for an attack by a dog not owned by them but one of their tenants.  It is the same as saying their tenants can't own fast cars or Motorbikes because they might cause an accident on the estate.

They could of course insist that their tenants get third party liability insurance for their dogs, though it is next to impossible to get just third party on a Pet Policy these days.

Personally I am mortified as it is not going to be the thugs who suffer and who buy and breed these dog types it will be the innocent owner who has a loving dog of good character.  I can think of nothing worse than being a council tennant in this area with a lovely GSD, Rottie, Dobe, Staff etc whom I have had for years and is a loving member of the family, suddenly being issued with a letter of re-homing that beloved dog or it being put down. What good does that do, I would be devastated, all of us being loving dog owners should feel that pain and distress, we are just lucky not to live there, if we did it would be horrific.

Better still to raid the homes of teenagers and known thugs and dogs of bad character used as status symbols and to take those dogs away for re-assessment of a new home or to be pts.  Why are the council and governments so afraid to just tackle the wrong doers, why include everyone in their ban.

By all means they could say from such and such a date none of these dog types are to be allowed on the estates, but why focus on the whole population, just focus on the dogs of bad human and dog character. :-(

but why focus on the whole population, just focus on the dogs of bad human and dog character. 

I agree Carrington - it is a bit like giving every teenager an ASBO just because they live in a certain area or are a certain age. You can't tar everyone with the same brush, problem owners should be targetted and not those people who are responsible owners.

It seems to be a common theme nowadays that responsible members of society have to pay the price for other people's lack of social conscience and the guilty members just carry on as they always have done :(

>>By all means they could say from such and such a date none of these dog types are to be allowed on the estates, but why focus on the whole population, just focus on the dogs of bad human and dog character.  <<<

Exactly!!

Where is this councils statistics for the number of complaints recieved , and the number of VALID complaints at that- also where are the statistics for the incidents that have arisen from these breeds?
They are pushing for the banning of these breeds nationally for gods sake and if they get it then other councils will have a precedent to follow should they so wish- How on earth can people agree with the mass destruction of innocent dogs because there isnt going to be a happy ending with all these dogs rehomed thats for sure........

Plus its not just confined to council properties , they are also trying to push for the banning of these breeds from public parks regardless of whether people live in council properties or not

They claim they are trying to protect the vulnerable and children on council property so will they also ban violent and abusive tenants also? I very much doubt it.......................

Plus what is the Irish Kennel Club doing to protect these breeds?

I believe that individual dogs and owners who are aggressive/dangerous should be penalized severely, not specific breeds or dog owners as a whole.

A few idiots around here are causing problems - and it's usually Staffies they own. Several people I know have changed their route and/or time of walk to avoid putting their dogs in danger. I made a complaint to the council against one man whose dog went for mine - he simply came along and kicked his dog off before disappearing without apologizing or checking if any damage had been done. It has attacked a few other dogs and is never on a lead.

I wonder if it's time for all dogs and owners to be licensed - especially if you own a dog of a certain breed or over a certain size. Also I would like to see it mandatory for dogs to pass a temperament test and attend training classes, otherwise they need to be kept leashed - but it would be hard to police and not practical. In an ideal world, their owners  would need to pass a temperament/common sense test too:rolleyes:

I have wondered, with all the recent restrictions against dog owners, why nobody has taken a council to court for breaching their human rights/civil liberties. Imagine the outcry if mothers and children were banned from parks so people could exercise their pets, or if an adult was only allowed to take out 2 or 3 children - in the same way as some councils are trying to limit dog walkers.

I wonder if it's time for all dogs and owners to be licensed
you'd think that would be sensible ..it wouldn't directly solve all the anti social issues but it would create funding that could be used directly to tackle dog owner related issues. But already with what we pay in tax for all our pet related expenses I think we put a lot of money back into the country by owning dogs so that revenue could be used constructively.

Actually the rights and freedoms of  parents are equally under pressure... as a parent you are always looking over your shoulder these days.. other countries make you feel good when you have kids and make your kids feel a valuable  part of society here they are made to feel a nuisance ....

> make your kids feel a valuable  part of society here they are made to feel a nuisance ....

But who's to blame for that ?? Parents (some) - unfortunately :( :(

Unfortunately, many people just will not accept any responsibility for anything these days - children, dogs, cars, money etc etc etc. :( :( :(

Daisy

it is more unfortunately a matter of too much focus is on the negative minority and not the positives of the majority.

Kids are a wonderful blessing.

Most kids like most adults are a credit to this country. As are most dogs.

> is on the negative minority

But in some areas quite a sizeable minority :( :( How many people get drunk (causing damage/hurt/anguish to others), drive over the speed limit, gamble/smoke/spend too much of their money and so can't afford the basics for their families, allow their children to run riot/play truant etc etc ?The list is endless - they just aren't esponsible members of society :( :(

Daisy

> is on the negative minority

But in some areas quite a sizeable minority :( :( How many people get drunk (causing damage/hurt/anguish to others), drive over the speed limit, gamble/smoke/spend too much of their money and so can't afford the basics for their families, allow their children to run riot/play truant etc etc ?The list is endless - they just aren't responsible members of society :( :(

Daisy

>I wonder if it's time for all dogs and owners to be licensed - especially if you own a dog of a certain breed or over a certain size

Hm Northern Ireland has compulsory dog licences & has done since 1983 & they have a terrible stray dog problem !

Far better to licence the owners/keepers just like a car licence after all the car is more dangerous then any dog

In Eire the Dangerous breeds have included all the breeds mantioned for a long time So all the Dublin council has done is ban people owning them in their properties

>What are the dangerous dogs laws in Ireland?
>The following types of dogs are regarded as potentially dangerous under Irish law, and they are legally required to be kept under control:
>American Pit Bull Terrier, English Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Ban Dog, Bull Dog, Bull Mastiff, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa
>Regulations require that the these dogs, and strains and crosses of these dogs, be kept under tight control. When in a public place, these dogs must be kept on a strong chain or leash by a person over sixteen years of age who is capable of controlling them. They must also be securely muzzled and must wear a collar bearing the name and address of the owners. Breach of the regulations can incur a heavy fine or seizure of dogs or both. This information is correct at the time of writing but some breeds may be removed from or added to the list

As an observation what happens if a Police GSD is working & ends up tracking the criminal(s)on to a council estate Will they have to have one breed for non council & one for council areas?

There is an Irish Dog Group

Just Had an email  letter giving the contact details for the councillor, MP and minister etc which I can forward to anyone who wants it so that letters of protest can be written.

Could you send the contact details to me please Barbara?

This really scares me. I've spoken out before about Pitbulls and their crosses as I don't think the regulations are tight enough about them, and they should all be seized....but now finally I guess I'm understanding why everyone else sticks up for them. If GSDs are now on a banned list (albeit only in Dublin at the moment) then whats to stop Edinburgh banning border collies next.

The words of Martin Niemoller come to mind...

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

I do understand where Debs is coming from too, as I drive through lots of rough areas every night and see the many staffie/rottie/boxer crosses wandering around with huge studded leather harnesses on but no leads. I don't see that banning them is the way forward though. These people will just dump their existing dogs and find other breeds that aren't yet on the list :rolleyes:

Hi Brainless- can you send me a copy please
I will PM you my email address

http://www.irishdogs.ie/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2213&FID=1&PR=3 has the letter and contact deatails for the people involved.

The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds" due to the increasing numbers of complaints from tenants

the question should be why have the council failed to deal with the complaints..it is simply lazy.

So if one kid smashes up a phone box should all the kids in the estate be arrested and locked up and given an ASBO? 

As landlords though the council should have a right to decide to have some houses dog free before a contract is signed..but to change the tenancy rules half way through..is that actually legal?

To place families in the position that they must to kill their dogs if they can find no other home for the dog ( and as all their friends are also banned from having these dogs lol... where else are they to go? ) or become homeless.. ? 

I was thinking..we have a property..it is quite exclusive with a  riverside location but we actually accept dogs...we have no restrictions on quantity or breeds. And Sometimes the tenants trash the place and the dogs have been destructive...but we do not renew their contract..we always accept dogs because each time you deal with different individuals.  You can not punish one good person because someone else was bad!

if anyone wishes to write or email local councillors and so on please contact the ANVIL website...

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

This is such a load of twaddle... fight it all the way....

I cant understand why they are banning dogs at all. There are laws regarding dogs behaviour, there are their own rules for living in a council house, so if they really are having all these complaints why are they not dealing with them on an individual basis? Ok, if they don't want certain breeds (and with any dog having the potential to bite depending on upbringing I dont see how they can chose breed/cross) then do it for new tennants. Its downright cruel to say to someone whos dog has never caused a problem that they can no longer own it, and it may have to be PTS if they can't rehome it. Both cruel for the dog and the owner. To me, this is just a 'lazymans' way of dealing with a situation, as the council simply can't be bothered to deal with the problems in the way they should.

can you imagine what rescue is going to be like?  the mind boggles, it's bad enough now... :-(

There are things happening... we're not gonna take this lying down and we're going to assist those in Ireland as much as we can... it's ludicrous..

I agree its the lazy way. A few months ago a couple of boys from my road were running about, damaging things and generally being a pain the bum. So the landlords wrote a letter to every home in our road that had children (including me) saying 'your son' has been seen doing this, and 'your son' did that and they had witnessed 'my son' breaking a fence themselves and unless I sorted him out he would be issued with an ASBO Of course, I rang them straight away absolutely furious that they had accused my son of these things (he was 6 at the time and never out of my sight) and gave them what for. They explained that not only did they know it wasn't my son but they knew exactly who it was and where they lived! When I asked why they didn't just send the letter to them (at the time I didn't know all the houses got one, as it was written so personally) they didn't have an answer!! So it seems to be the way to throw everyone in one box for the crimes of the few.

They explained that not only did they know it wasn't my son but they knew exactly who it was and where they lived!
it might be worth taking informing the authorities they you were threatened with an ASBO..it is a misuse of the justice system as he is not in authority to make such threats and also in this country we are innocent until proven guilty  If he wants to press charges there are correct procedures he should be using..and intimidation of families and of their well behaved children is not one of them.

Once adults who are supposed to be leading the way alienate children from society through bad behaviour and injustice the kids they then have no incentive to behave...they must be set a good example. I am very pleased you didn't accept this behaviour from your landlord. Well done!

I am not sure that the Irish MPs or councilors would have any regard for petitions from individuals that do not reside there.  
Ireland seems to have an unfortunate history in animal welfare, it is not so many years ago that I remember a crack down on council house tenants keeping horses and ponies on their property and I mean in back yards etc as well as turned out on common playing greens etc.  I think it is maybe hard for us to appreciate what they may be having to deal with there and we are not, perhaps, in the best position to advise them.

well, from my point of view, whether I reside there or not Isabel, as a dog lover I feel it partly my responsibility to do what I can, when I can....
Whether Irish MP's/Councillors have any regard for my view or not, they'll be getting it...
otherwise we could be on the slippery slope to BSL and I for one certainly don't want that happening; here, Ireland or anywhere else... :-)

I don't know about slippery slope to BSL we have one already don't we?
There are different dog laws all over Europe why would this particular country's law affect ours more than any other? 
Are you going to email all the other European countries that have restrictions of one sort or another?

already have done :-)

Indeed, there are different laws across Europe.  Ireland, (or for now Dublin City Council) being another to add to the long list of countries that are discriminating against certain breeds. 
So in answer to your question - I don't know that Ireland bringing in this particular law will change the laws in our country, but equally I don't know that it won't either :-)
So I for one, am not sitting here thinking 'not in my back yard' and am going to try and do something about it...that's all....not everyone holds my views, and I'm not asking them to :-)

And yes, a form of BSL certainly does exist in this country, but compared to Canada, North America, Australia, Germany and many other countries, well - we ain't seen nothing yet....
Our BSL doesn't even scratch the surface compared to these countries I'm afraid..
I don't like any form of intolerance and this to me is just that.

Well email them if your like, although what they will make of a non citizens view I am not sure :).  However, as I can't recall any instance of our Government following laws introduced in Eire or from any other country for that matter, rather than as a response to something occuring here or a need identified here, personally, I think I will stick to concerning myself to what our Government proposes. 
The other side of the intolerance coin is, what have the responsible residents of these council estates been having to live with?  What have they had to tolerate despite laws already banning these breeds?  What has driven these councils to act further?

The other side of the intolerance coin is, what have the responsible residents of these council estates been having to live with?  What have they had to tolerate despite laws already banning these breeds?  What has driven these councils to act further?

But surely a blanket ban affects the responsible members of that community far more than the irresponsible ones. The responsible law abiding residents who own dogs of the breeds that will be banned are now going to have to pay the price for all the irresponsible owners. Owners who let their dogs roam at will, defecate all over the place and participate in acts of aggression would probably not be that bothered whether their dogs are taken away from them anyway - if they were that concerned about their dogs' welfare they would take a responsible stance to begin with.

If communities have had to tolerate these problems despite laws being already in place banning these breeds then the authorities are not doing their jobs properly. It is never easy to police these laws but, just because it is difficult to enforce them, that shouldn't mean that responsible owners should have to pay the price of someone else's misdoings.

I think that these councils have taken this step because it is easier to ban all dogs of particular breeds rather than to find a solution on how to act against the particular offenders. Rogue owners are a problem but they should be treated as any other person who breaks the law - they break the law and so they pay the price. If the councils are able to introduce this law which bans all of those breeds - whether the owner is a responsible owner or not - then they must be in a position to enforce these new laws. If that is the case then why couldn't they enforce the original laws and, if they couldn't do that, then how are they going to enforce the new ones? Or does it, once again, rely on the honest, responsible people coming forward and the irresponsible ones just ignoring the rules as they have done in the past. If that is the case the only thing that is going to change is that responsible, caring owners are now going to lose their dogs :(

I don't feel I know anything about what steps have already been attempted to deal with things on an individual basis.  If it is proving an intractable problem the expenditure would have a further knock on effect for those citizens that are not causing any problems in loss of facilities etc. to add to whatever problems irresponsible ownership is leading to for them.  This new law might actually be to facilitate an easy and more direct legal route to deal with matters and limit public expenditure on it.  I have a hard enough job keeping up with current affairs here let alone all other countries :) which is why I don't feel I could possibility lobby or even comment to this countries authorities. 

'Labour councillor Kevin Humphreys said he understood council tenants may feel discriminated against, but he hoped that this was just the first step to banning these breeds nationally.'

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/10709547?view=Eircomnet

He's had an e-mail from me.:rolleyes:

When he says internationally I will email him.

Oh great,
At the moment I have a Rottie cross and a full Rottie laying on the sofa, Bith brilliant dogs, both traioned, neither a nuisance.
If that comesto England then I am moving abroad, I L:OVE Rotties, and cant see my life without them.
Lea :( :( :(

Im not sure where people will stand legally but I suspect there will be some interestiing legal challenges to this ban. I agree that they are landlords and as such can impose whatever restrictions they wish but to insist on rehoming/PTS when people already own these breeds seems incredibly unfair to me. 

How can this happen?? Surely someone will have to prove that the dogs are dangerous?

If the councils tried to ban every Jamaican born man from estates because he might play loud reggae music and upset the neighbours, there would be an outcry!

It looks like they are using peoples fear of certain breeds as an opportunity to rid the estates of dogs like they would love to, but can't, from all public areas....full stop.

Dog owning is healthy. They get you out and walking in the fresh air when you could just sit and watch the box instead. Dog owning is also a social occation too. To meet the neighbours and other dog walkers in the fields for a chat and a wander makes the day for some of the elderly owners and of course going to clubs, shows etc is fun. The goverment is always bashing on about excersise and mental health, but they also want to ban the best health giving aid known to man. It's one of the essentials that we brought with us from the caves thousands of years ago, the Dog?????