The fact is, those who live in council houses and want dogs that look or are dangerous will just move on to different breeds.

This is already happening, those who previously wanted pitbulls moved on to dogue de bordeaux, mastiffs, ebt's.... they WILL find a breed that suits and it wont take them very long. I can think off the top of my head, of two Irish breeds who when bred for 'work' rather than show would excell at being intimidating dogs, and both have a history of fighting, neither are on this proposed dublin city council ban list.

This being so, it does naf all to protect those members of the public who end up suffering because of these peoples behaviour, it will do naf all to protect victims from being bitten.

AFAIK the council can ban from their properties whatever they damn well please, my local council ban the keeping of poisonous snakes and any snake over a certain length, the keeping of fowl, and any other livestock. In previous places i have lived, also council owned, one needed written permission to own a dog and permission was granted on the basis of the dogs suitability to live on those premises... whilst at the time my local council intended that to prevent people keeping huge dogs in tiny flats, it could easily be switched to prevent people owning breeds deemed as 'dangerous' by the powers that be.

I actually thiknk its extremely unlikely that anyone will outright ban the ownership of KC reg breeds in the UK, BUT.........

What i thik will happen is we will end up effectively unable to own them due to restrictions placed on the keeping of them... if you cant walk one of these breeds in public and cant let them off the lead ad cant keep them in xyz places....

This proposed ban, like the rest of the BSL worldwide is ridiculous, it doesnt acheive what it sets out to acheive because it is in most cases not policeable, and where it is policeable..... the police have higher priorities so it isnt. The penalties for owning a banned breed and the methods of determining what is and isnt a banned breed are vague and open to serious misinterpretation, i cant see any reason that would change for the better!

We have had in the uk, 16 years? of BSL, kicked off by what happened to Ruksana Khan who was attacked adn injured by Rottwielers.

Clearly the death of Ellie Lawrenson and the death of baby Caydee-Lee were not prevented by BSL or the DDA... those are just the two most recent deaths, there are too many other 'dog attacks person' incidents to list, and i cant think of ANY that resulted in any human being penalised under the current dog laws we have (bar Kiel Simpson who got a pitiful few montns for owning a dangerous dog, no idea what his mum got for gross neglience). Surely this goes to show that it jsut doesnt work!

In case anyone is interested...I've had an email back from Miriam at ANVIL.
The ball is rolling... ANVIL are seeking legal advice and should update their website within a couple of days.
There is lots of advice on there for people living in Dublin...

Dont know if anyone is interested in signing, I am as anything to try and help is better than nothing, there is a petition for this dog ban here <a class='url' href='http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?anvil999&1'>http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?anvil999&1</a>

>because it is in most cases not policeable, and where it is policeable..... the police have higher priorities so it isnt.

That is Parliamentary law though.  As regards the sort of byelaw that this thread is referring to police would not be involved.  The whole thing will probably just be policed by the simple expedient of evicting anyone that breaks the rule.  They would not even need to employ inspectors as aggrieved neighbours will keep them informed.

Mmm.....

If it happened on my estate though, would cost the council an absolute fortune to evict and take to court everyone who refused to give up their dog, and refused to leave the property.

Whilst there will be people who will 'whistleblow' on neighbours with prohibited breeds, if its anything like this estate there will also be people whod punish whistleblowing severely and make peoples lives a misery if they considered it - and given it IS those types of people who cause the problem re dangerous dogs in the first place..... where are you at> square one again!

I would be interested to know if the current restrictions on these breeds that were brought in some years ago are complied with and enforced???  For those who don't know compulsory on leash walking and muzzled with someone over 16 years of age.  If not then how will this ban work?  Only the law abiding will comply, or maybe refuse to comply as ti is unreasonable and turn otherwise law abiding dog owners into criminals.

In ireland.... according to a few ive spoken to in the Dublin area, hardly ever, its not  taken seriously at all. THat might well not be the case elsewhere but its what those i know have reported.

Then as usual the law abiding and their dogs will suffer the unfairness of this bylaw, and those causing the problems will continue to do so.

I also wonder how many people are are of the restrictions already law (muzzling and on lead walking of certain breeds?).  We have had people come to our training classes proudly saying their dog is a Pit bull or Pit bull cross and we tel them they had best not repeat that anymore as they are illegal and have been for 16 years, they are convinced we are pulling their leg or are mistaken. 

[DELETED]

This is directed at ISOBEL on this site who replied to me on another thread and someone has now locked the thread even though it had a link to petition against the ban in Dublin. She seems to think on this thread that the ban is perfectly ok as well.

How dare you insult me and other dog owners who actully give a damn by saying this wont be on our doorstep, apart from the fact it was a matter of speech are you really that closed and narrow minded that you think this wont effect everyone???????That they wont think one day, 'oh this works lets do it everywhere else!'
Or are your dogs  not one of the breed on the banned list and you JUST DONT CARE as your dogs are safe?
I have never been so angry at someones narrow mindness.  to dismiss the fact this has spread from Canada to Dublin to Japan in all different kinds of bans how can you say it wont be on our doorstep???!!! ITS ALREADY HERE!

Im in agreement with Racheal

Is this not a dog forum? Are people here not dog lovers? Every single person on this forum if they truly are an animal lover should be signing this petition whether it is on your doorstep or not. Will it happen in the UK who knows but FACT it has happened in Dublin and FACT it is stated that if these dogs are not rehomed off council property they will be destroyed...

As for dogs roaming....is there not going to be an increase as some of the mutton head crap owners dump their dogs and others panic and leave them as they see no other alternative.

Can you live with yourself knowing that animals are being put to sleep because you have not signed?

As I explained to Blondi when she PM'd me I cannot lock any thread, although I often wish I could :) It is the terms of service that dictate you do not start another thread on the same subject.  I also pointed out to Blondi that there is nothing to stop the link being placed on this thread which was pretty helpful I think.  She seems to have neglected to mention that :)
As to insulting you and other dog owners, if you take the trouble to read this thread you will see exactly where my opinion is coming from and, no, I do not accept any of our dog laws have spread from any other country they are simply a response to situation that occur in that particular locality at that particular time. If you can illustrate an example of a law being adopted by our Parliament where the debate centered on what another country was experiencing I would be very interested to hear it.

I have read this thread and everyone else comes from my point of view, being a dog lover.
and in regards to Blondi SHE DID tell me via PM what had happened and i never said YOU locked the post i said IT had been locked.
Places which have this ban are following suit and there is no other explanation, please, before you try to justify yourself and your narrowminded views at least check your in the right, and your not by my and many others opinion as you do not show the views of someone who wants this ban lifted infact it looks like you support it.

I neither support nor condemn it.  As I have already said in this thread I am not fully acquainted with current affairs in Eire so do not feel entitled to comment on what steps their democratically elected politicians feel are required.
Your view may be that places are following suit as regards dog control laws but I would suggest that as every country appears to be producing quite unique laws with considerable variation my opinion that each is introduced in response to their unique and varied experiences appears to be supported. I could equally level the insult that narrowmindedness could be applied to your point of view so you see it is pointless in using personal insults in an adult discussion.

Isabel

for your information. I did tell Rachael that it was not you but admin that locked and deleted the thread and I have emailed them accordingly.

Im shocked that any dog lover could sit on the fence like this.

I'm a people lover too :)  If people are living in difficult circumstances as a result of others irresponsible behaviour I accept that the authorities may have to take steps to improve their lives.  I also think that dog laws have an element of improving the welfare of dogs in many cases.

Their welfare will be improved how? By destroying animals??

Yes, not all dogs lives are pleasant and the sort of owners that lead to these sorts of legislation being introduced are not always animal lovers by any means.

and what about the people and animals that are.....??

Would you willingly give up your dog?

I would probably comply with any laws yes, although I would obviously explore other options such a moving or rehoming the dog.  If I did choose to break any law I would not expect others to support my decision particularly not those who will not be familiar with the entire context, after all support for me will, inevitably, be lack of support for those who wished for the introduction of the law.

will, inevitably, be lack of support for those who wished for the introduction of the law.

Now thats an interesting point. I wonder just who wished for this. I cannot see it being the local dog owners, because even if they are annoyed enough to complain about a certain persons dog I can't see them supporting a total ban on certain breeds/cross breeds nor would they want it. I would imagine (although murky waters here because I cant mind read) but most dog owners wouldnt want to cause harm and worry on other dog owners or their dogs so I can hardly see them supporting this, just want the council to get off their rumps and do something with those that are causing problems.

Moving home may be an option for those that can afford it, and can sell their homes and afford the move and all the expensices that entails, but often people in council homes cannot afford this. Council house exchange is difficult, and anyway, where will they move to? It would have to be outside the Dublin area for starters, which could cause problems for work, school etc.

This is far to close to the DDA to me, and goodness knows how many people kicked against that, and still do. :(

I have no idea what it is like in that area other than the bits I have read but I think even a dog owner might support it if they have fallen victim in anyway to the irresponsible dog owners or those that are using these dogs in a criminal fashion.  Also much in the way that those of us that clean up after our dogs are happy to see those that don't brought to book because we recognise if we don't it can lead to wider restrictions on us all, owners of less problematic breeds might wish to see a clean up a troubled area to prevent a wider anti-dog feeling getting a hold. 
And then there is that strange breed, the non dog owner, who we should also consider, perhaps :).  They get a vote too in a democracy :)

I hardly think a dog owner would want to shoot themselves in the foot :D or someone who truely loves dogs and cares for the feelings of others would want this action.

Those that don't own dogs of course have their rights and feelings to be taken into account, perhaps they would feel happy having countless dogs destroyed or put into already overcrowded rescue centres ......   or maybe not. I doubt anyone has actually had the chance to vote to see who wants what.

Deed not Breed. This sounds so simple yet so correct. This post reminds me of the action the Police took in Liverpool, trying to round up dogs under the DDA and what a reaction that caused! So many people with good natured dogs that look a certain way risking being seized........just because a sad few caused the problems, and the incompetent owners and grandma caused the death of a child.

So very sad for the ordinary pet owners of Dublin. :(

This post reminds me of the action the Police took in Liverpool, trying to round up dogs under the DDA and what a reaction that caused! So many people with good natured dogs that look a certain way risking being seized

hmmm... but on the plus side - look how many dogs were handed back to their owners after being seized :-)

be assured people of Dublin - you do NOT have to give up your dog to be put to sleep.....

>I hardly think a dog owner would want to shoot themselves in the foot  or someone who truely loves dogs and cares for the feelings of others would want this action.

Like I said, if your dog was one that had suffered an attack from a dog irresponsibly owned you may well consider it appropriate action.  You might feel that your feelings were now being considered.

>Those that don't own dogs of course have their rights and feelings to be taken into account, perhaps they would feel happy having countless dogs destroyed or put into already overcrowded rescue centres ...... 

Perhaps they would if their lives have been made a misery by these dogs.  Presumably events have been serious enough to have led to this course of action.

>I doubt anyone has actually had the chance to vote to see who wants what.

Possibly not, although it may have been a declared intention of the councillors at last election I suppose, like I said, I am not all that clued up on Eire current affairs, but they certainly will at the next ballot.

Like I said, if your dog was one that had suffered an attack from a dog irresponsibly owned you may well consider it appropriate action.

Yes, for that dog, not everyones!

Perhaps they would if their lives have been made a misery by these dogs.  Presumably events have been serious enough to have led to this course of action

Once again, those dogs, not every dog that lives there.  .

but they certainly will at the next ballot.

And how many dogs will be dead or rehomed by then. :rolleyes:

Oh well, off to cook tea :P :D

>Yes, for that dog, not everyones!

But that dog matters too.  There might be lots of them.  You are never going to cover everyones needs with problematic neighbour laws which is why we should leave democratically elected leaders to deal with their particular neighbourhood issues in the way that they understand will benefit the majority.  I would not like a neighbouring county to interfer with my democractically elected leaders let alone another country.

if people are living in difficult circumstances, then the councils have their laws, both private and police, to deal with it but they obviously are not using that. they are being exceptionally lazy and cruel in my mind by putting such stress on their tennents by threatening this course of action. As with the DDA, this is a very unsound practice that will not improve the welfare of dogs or people, but may cure the immediate problem because a lot of family pets will be dead. Has the DDA improved the welfare of dogs? hardly, neither when it came in nor today, and it fails to work as has been shown because people are still breeding dangerous dogs.

I can see how eaisily it could come in force in this country, should a council think how well it worked in Dublin. As animal lovers, I would think all of us should be appauled by this course of action, as many were with the DDA.

Rather than lazy or cruel they appear to be considering tax payer's money as this law appears to have been introduced to simplify how matters are dealt with.  It could well be if this proves effective other councils might consider it but, as they are all democratically elected I doubt it would be used where it would cause more ill feeling than support and I doubt it would ever be used where there was not a considerable problem, which for what I understand, is the case here.

Simplify yes, by exceptionally backhanded and yes lazy means. The courts are there for a purpose, and should be used. Anyone showing unacceptable behaviour should be dealt with as per the council rules, in this case they are totally condeming the lives of countless dogs that have never put a paw wrong. how can that be justified?

democratically elected .............thats a laugh in itself. How many times have a council/members been elected then fail to follow through with their promises, or change the ball game to suit themselves?

Well that's representative democracy for you rather than direct (sorry about the jargon Rach85;)) but the sting is you don't get to come again :)  What polictical system would you advocate then?

What polictical system would you advocate then?

Put quite simply, one where the MPs actually tell the truth, where they don't change their promises once elected, where they give straight answers to questions rather than pussyfooting around the edges of the question and their words meaning nothing at all. That would do fo starters :D

possible reasoning behind the ban?...because the council are not proficient at enforcing their current dog control laws...it's much easier (read lazier :-)) to just drag all the dogs in on the list and euthanise them.
Blanket banning certain breeds will just not work.  It will make the figures look a darn sight better though (!)

Local authority area       Dublin City 
Number of licences  6,798
No. of fines             224
No. paid                    51
No. of prosecutions     23
No. of convictions         1
No. of households     190,984

Well that's very telling.  23 prosecutions but only 1 conviction.  Clearly applying the law, as was, was problematic and this will have represented considerable resources taken from the rates not to mention whatever ever other action has been spent chasing fees short of presecution.  With such difficulties with compliance no wonder they are looking at other solutions.

other solutions, maybe. Hounding innocent people because the council is incompetent to sort out its own problems, should never be allowed, especially when it ends in death for many dogs.

23 prosecutions and 1 conviction tells me they didnt have enough evidence, so dogs are to die or be rehomed because the council cannot do their job correctly .................or of course, there wasnt enough evidence in the first place. People do make false or OTT complaints...:rolleyes:

Well, now we are both speculating which returns me to my point that those of us who do not live there and do not appreciate the full context of the state of affairs are not really in a position to pass judgement on what should be done or not done.

I'm not speculating, the figures are there to be plainly seen.

I may not live there, but I do have an opinion, same as others here, and I would hate to see dogs PTS or rehomed just because of the few, when the council are obviously not doing their job correctly. If there are so many complaints, why are they not being dealt with. I wonder how they deal with any other antisocial behaviour.

Now I really have to cook the tea ;) or I'll be sacked :P :P

You are speculating that the council were being incompetent when it could be a resource issue and I would speculate the opposite and that this is now their solution to ensure complaints can be dealt with within the limitations presented by resources :)

Clearly applying the law, as was, was problematic

as IS Isabel, the law/legislation is still in place.  Perhaps I didn't quite make clear that this table refers to convictions and fines in relation to the current legislation of muzzling and having your dog on a lead no longer than 2 metres and so on.
I see the authorities difficulties, but what I still don't see is how applying a new by-law to only 11 breeds of dog, resources taken into account or not, is going to help matters.

>as IS Isabel, the law/legislation is still in place.

Yes, but that was all they had previously, now there is an addition. 
I doubt they have plucked the 11 breeds out of the air I would presume these are the ones they have had the most problems with locally or that they believe might become a problem if the irresponsible acquire them.  You, yourself, said the figures may look a lot better if they were banned :)

if i was having a personal go you would know, and all the technical jargon youre using just makes you look more like a supporter of this bans as you never answer with a straight yes or no its always jargon this and jargon that.
Every country is not starting laws no but the places that are are too many already and just because it APPEARS to be supported doesnt mean it SHOULD be.
I was never making it personal but it seems YOU just have, my how the tables turn and now who is the childish one in an adult discussion making it personal?????

You clearly are struggling to understand my points although I never realised it was "technical jargon" :)

Death sentence looms over family pets following Dublin City Councils' decision

Many family pets are at risk of being destroyed following the decision by Dublin City Council to ban all dogs listed under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991.  Restricted breeds include;  the American Pit Bull Terrier, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff,  Dobermann Pinscher, English Bull Terrier, German Shepherd (Alsatian),  Japanese Akita,  Japanese Tosa, Rhodesian Ridgeback,  Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Ban Dog or any crosses of these breeds.

ANVIL Ireland has condemned this move.  Spokesperson, Miriam Anderson stated "this decision appears to have been made in the absence of any informed discussion with rescue or welfare groups.  The fact that Dublin City Council has referred to all of these breeds as "dangerous dogs" implies a total lack of understanding of both the breeds in question and the existing legislation".

Some of these breeds were originally bred as herding animals, it is bad breeding, irresponsible owners, and negative reporting by certain sections of the media that has led to this situation.  Education and stricter enforcement of the existing legislation is what is needed, not an outright ban.  Such bans have not worked in other countries and to say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not an accurate statement.  All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner

This is discrimination against council tenants as well as any responsible owner of one of these breeds.  The councils' proposed bylaw amendments will mean that these animals could not be walked in a public park, regardless of where its' owner lives. 

ANVIL members are angry but not surprised by the councils' decision; "It further proves how little we care for companion animals in this country when an ill advised decision like this can be taken so quickly, but we have waited over a year for the implementation of the dog breeding regulations, and almost 100 years for updated animal protection legislation.  We cannot call ourselves civilised if we can treat animals in this cavalier fashion", their spokesperson said.

ANVIL is calling on all owners of restricted breeds to write to Dublin City Council and the Minister for the Environment to register their opposition to the councils' decision and proposal of a nationwide ban on these dogs.  Further information may be obtained from www.anvilireland.ie

Even Bulldogs and English Bull Terriers are on this list

struggling ...no. laughing at your twists and turns....yes.
I never said 'technical jargon' at all DID I?? You like to put words in peoples mouths dont you??? and be patrionising and deconsending you must be such a delight to meet in person

IS BLONDIS POST QUITE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU ISOBEL??? NOW IS IT SINKING IN AT ALL?

Do you have to be so aggressive? You are going the right way to getting banned on here - and thats not going to help your cause, is it?

You could try to spell her name correctly too?

>IS BLONDIS POST QUITE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU ISOBEL??? NOW IS IT SINKING IN AT ALL?

There is no need to shout but no, I can't see any addition information in Blondis post that makes me regard this any differently.

>and all the technical jargon youre using

The good thing about this forum is that everyone is entitled to have their say and express their views as long as it is done in a polite manner :)

One doesn't have to agree with another person's point of view - there are many different ways of interpreting what a "dog lover" is let alone the rights or wrongs of the legislation in question - but personal attacks only lead to the thread being locked and thus preventing any further discussion on the subject :(