Dog Ban in Dublin [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

LotusElise

17th July 2007, 14:22

I agree. But how do you know who is a good dog owner and who isn't? A dog is kind of like a gun.

A Japanese Akita is to a Dachshund (What the Akita killed :rolleyes: ) what a 44 magnum is to a plastic bow and arrow set with suction cup arrows.

Now in this country (which I realise is not Ireland) you're not allowed to own a handgun. Surely being logical we should assume that people should not be able to own dangerous animals unless they can prove there is a need and they are properly restrained/contained at all times.

These dogs are in my opinion dangerous enough to warrant people not being able to own one. German Shepherds are generally well behaved though......

We used to have to have licenses for dogs. In some ways, I think that bringing them back might be a good idea.
I used to look after people's dogs a lot and Akitas certainly aren't a beginner's pet. When properly trained and cared for, they can be very faithful companions, but they do have a very strong prey instinct and really should be muzzled to protect other animals. (Like your poor Dachshund.) Siberian Huskies are absolute nightmares for chasing/attacking other animals as well, although they are almost without exception friendly to people.
"Punish the deed, not the breed" is a good attitude to take, although responsible and experience-appropriate ownership should also be encouraged.

Daniel

17th July 2007, 14:37

We used to have to have licenses for dogs. In some ways, I think that bringing them back might be a good idea.
I used to look after people's dogs a lot and Akitas certainly aren't a beginner's pet. When properly trained and cared for, they can be very faithful companions, but they do have a very strong prey instinct and really should be muzzled to protect other animals. (Like your poor Dachshund.) Siberian Huskies are absolute nightmares for chasing/attacking other animals as well, although they are almost without exception friendly to people.
"Punish the deed, not the breed" is a good attitude to take, although responsible and experience-appropriate ownership should also be encouraged.

I'm sorry but that's a very silly attitude. "Punish the little 2 year old child which will get savaged to death by the breed so someone can have a dog that they don't actually need" would be a more apt line. These sort of dogs are a weapon. Some have extremely strong hunting instincts as you say. One of our Dachshunds we had about 20 years ago managed to get around next door and killed one of our neighbours chickens. Luckily he was only a small thing so the biggest danger her posed to humans was possibly a ripped sock or pair of trousers at most.

Dogs like this are a weapon and there are generally laws against keeping weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dog lover through and through but I have no idea why you'd want to own such a dangerous animal.

LotusElise

17th July 2007, 15:25

The Akita I looked after a few times was mostly indifferent to people other than her owner. She wasn't a cuddly dog but didn't seem threatened by people. Other animals were another story though, especially small ones which ran away quickly.

Strangely, the only dog I refused to go near again was a shih-tzu with a huge grudge against most of humanity and very sharp teeth. It was a dangerous animal with irresponsible owners.

Daniel

17th July 2007, 15:38

Well it's not acceptable for a dog to kill people or other dogs so my original point still stands. If a Shih Tzu attacked me it would get a sharp kick :) Not a danger to me at all.

schmenke

17th July 2007, 16:21

After a rash of attacks on children (and other dogs) the city of Toronto has recently passed municipal legislation prohibiting the ownership of Pit Bulls :mark:

Loobylou

17th July 2007, 17:15

I agree. But how do you know who is a good dog owner and who isn't? A dog is kind of like a gun.

...

These dogs are in my opinion dangerous enough to warrant people not being able to own one. German Shepherds are generally well behaved though......

Oh dear, someone's had a bad experience & thinks other people should suffer too.

I got snapped at by a bichon frise, I don't want them all destroying because I know it was the fault of the owner. I got beaten up by a gang of asian lads at school, I don't want them all deporting, I got hit by a Discovery, I don't want them all scrapping.

We've all had bad experiences Daniel, as you say German Sheperds are generally well behaved - I dare say someone has been bitten by one once though.

Why should entire breeds be blacklisted because of a few incidents? That's like saying all Australians are criminals because that's where we used to deport 'criminals' to.

I'm not saying a dog that has attacked should not be destroyed (depending on the circumstances), I am saying that entire breeds should not be classified on the actions of a few.

Malbec

17th July 2007, 17:28

We used to have to have licenses for dogs. In some ways, I think that bringing them back might be a good idea.
I used to look after people's dogs a lot and Akitas certainly aren't a beginner's pet. When properly trained and cared for, they can be very faithful companions, but they do have a very strong prey instinct and really should be muzzled to protect other animals. (Like your poor Dachshund.) Siberian Huskies are absolute nightmares for chasing/attacking other animals as well, although they are almost without exception friendly to people.
"Punish the deed, not the breed" is a good attitude to take, although responsible and experience-appropriate ownership should also be encouraged.

I totally agree with the licencing idea, quite often its the owner failing to bring up the dog properly that is the root cause.

With certain breeds I think tighter regulation is definitely needed with perhaps mandatory training sessions while the dog is still a puppy and the power to take the dog back if these minimum standards aren't met. Banning entire breeds though is a total overreaction.

Daniel

17th July 2007, 19:18

Oh dear, someone's had a bad experience & thinks other people should suffer too.

I got snapped at by a bichon frise, I don't want them all destroying because I know it was the fault of the owner. I got beaten up by a gang of asian lads at school, I don't want them all deporting, I got hit by a Discovery, I don't want them all scrapping.

We've all had bad experiences Daniel, as you say German Sheperds are generally well behaved - I dare say someone has been bitten by one once though.

Why should entire breeds be blacklisted because of a few incidents? That's like saying all Australians are criminals because that's where we used to deport 'criminals' to.

I'm not saying a dog that has attacked should not be destroyed (depending on the circumstances), I am saying that entire breeds should not be classified on the actions of a few.
Funny. Actually no. It's absolutely hilarious..... :rotflmao:

It's like saying that a few people had a bad experience with guns in Virginia a few months ago but you shouldn't punish the people who enjoy guns because they do the right thing.

If guns were cuddly, fluffy and lovable like dogs would people in the UK be so against them? Would we still have a law prohibiting every Tom, Dick and Harry owning one?

BeansBeansBeans

17th July 2007, 19:34

I can see both sides. Many breeds are potentially dangerous if not handled correctly. Frankly, anyone can go out and get an Akita or a Pit Bull, without having any knowledge of how to handle them, and that can lead to the dog becoming dangerous. However, a blanket ban on people who already own dogs on this list, and may handle them responsibly, is over the top.

tinchote

17th July 2007, 19:36

I agree with Daniel. The same way I don't like the idea of my neighbours having guns, I don't fancy the thought of possibly dangerous dogs near my little girls.

jso1985

17th July 2007, 19:37

After a rash of attacks on children (and other dogs) the city of Toronto has recently passed municipal legislation prohibiting the ownership of Pit Bulls :mark:

well done :up: I'm yet to see a Pit Bull who isn't agressive!

BeansBeansBeans

17th July 2007, 19:40

If guns were cuddly, fluffy and lovable like dogs would people in the UK be so against them?

What a bizarre statement. I've had to read it a few times to get my head round it.

A gun is an inanimate object, which can't really be compared with a dog. My dog is a part of my family, and most other owners feel the same way about their dogs. I'd have no problem with a local authority confiscating people's guns, but taking people's dogs away from them wihtout good reason is heartless.

BDunnell

17th July 2007, 19:41

BeansBeansBeans

17th July 2007, 19:46

I agree with Daniel. The same way I don't like the idea of my neighbours having guns, I don't fancy the thought of possibly dangerous dogs near my little girls.

Nobody likes the thought of their children being hurt, but can we really remove all danger from children's lives without harming their quality of life?

tinchote

17th July 2007, 19:49

Nobody likes the thought of their children being hurt, but can we really remove all danger from children's lives without harming their quality of life?

I agree with the statement in general, but try to say that face to face to someone who lost a child to a vicious dog.

schmenke

17th July 2007, 19:50

How does a neighbour's dog (or removal of) affect my children's quality of life?
If my neighbour owned a Pit Bull I'd sure as heck want it removed.

Caroline

17th July 2007, 19:52

What a bizarre statement. I've had to read it a few times to get my head round it.

A gun is an inanimate object, which can't really be compared with a dog. My dog is a part of my family, and most other owners feel the same way about their dogs. I'd have no problem with a local authority confiscating people's guns, but taking people's dogs away from them wihtout good reason is heartless.

Not really. A gun is as you say an inanimate object. I can take the firing pin out, have the barrel made safe or just lock it in a safe and hide the key. Then it's safe unless some twit finds the key and takes it out.

Even with my best efforts if I owned a dangerous dog it could always in some way be possibly dangerous to someone. If you're walking a large dog which is aggressive you're never truly in control. I know this from walking my ex girlfriend's golden retriever one or two times :mark: The difference is that most golden retrievers are in no way aggressive. An Akita or a Pit Bull are almost always inherently aggressive and sometimes are even owned because of this trait by men who usually have small willies.

How do you test people on their ability to keep a dangerous animal?

Are you a good person to be having this dangerous animal?

Yes!

Good stuff. You've past and can now keep an animal that is a distinct danger to people and other animals :cheese:

I don't agree with dogs being destroyed or anything because that's wrong. But there's no place in a city for something with the instinct, capability and power to kill a person. Even my Dachshunds will kill mice and rats. I'd be all for banning Dachshunds if they weighed the same as me and could kill me!!!!!

Daniel

17th July 2007, 19:54

Daniel

17th July 2007, 19:54

Nobody likes the thought of their children being hurt, but can we really remove all danger from children's lives without harming their quality of life?
Buy a pet which can't kill them perhaps? :)

BDunnell

17th July 2007, 19:58

Buy a pet which can't kill them perhaps? :)

I agree with BBB's statement to which that was a response, but also with your view there. Maybe, as someone who dislikes all pets, I'm not the best person to comment on this, but I have good personal reason to hold my view.

Daniel

17th July 2007, 20:08

I agree with BBB's statement to which that was a response, but also with your view there. Maybe, as someone who dislikes all pets, I'm not the best person to comment on this, but I have good personal reason to hold my view.
Well I love dogs and even before one of my dogs was killed I always disliked dangerous dogs and thought they should be kept away from the general populace :)

BeansBeansBeans

17th July 2007, 20:26

How does a neighbour's dog (or removal of) affect my children's quality of life?
If my neighbour owned a Pit Bull I'd sure as heck want it removed.

My parents didn't want me to get abducted and killed by a paedophile, but they still let me play outside.

You can't remove all risk from children's lives. All dogs are capable of biting children if they've been handled badly. Does this mean we should ban all dogs to completely remove the risk, thereby meaning that our children never get to experience the joy of having a pet dog?

schmenke

17th July 2007, 20:42

I would want a known paedophile removed from neighbourhood as much as an agressive dog. What's wrong with that? Both are potential hazards to my kids; the dog probably more so due to its unpredictability.

I would not object to my kids owning a pet dog (heck, I grew up with dogs), but I would obviously not want a dog that has a known agressive temperment.

Malbec

17th July 2007, 21:32

An Akita or a Pit Bull are almost always inherently aggressive and sometimes are even owned because of this trait by men who usually have small willies.

Akitas aren't inherently aggressive.

In Japan they are kept as family pets and are very popular because of their loyalty and because they're considered one of the safer types of dog to have around children.

Over here they have an entirely different reputation but its still the same dog. The difference is in the way some of the owners here perceive them and therefore bring them up.

If better steps are taken to ensure only the right kind of responsible owner gets to buy these dogs (alongside other steps such as mandatory muzzling) then there simply won't be a problem.

Schmenke, you say you don't want paedophiles in the same area as your children. Presumably extending the logic you apply to dogs you'd have all males banned from your neighbourhood right? Because statistically the vast majority of paedophiles are male.....

schmenke

17th July 2007, 21:45

...Schmenke, you say you don't want paedophiles in the same area as your children. Presumably extending the logic you apply to dogs you'd have all males banned from your neighbourhood right? Because statistically the vast majority of paedophiles are male.....

A rather extreme stretch of logic, don't you think? :dozey:

Eki

17th July 2007, 22:00

How does a neighbour's dog (or removal of) affect my children's quality of life?
If my neighbour owned a Pit Bull I'd sure as heck want it removed.
Why? If they keep their Pit Bull away from your children and you keep your children away from their Pit Bull, then what's the problem? They could as well want your children removed.

schmenke

17th July 2007, 22:10

Why? If they keep their Pit Bull away from your children and you keep your children away from their Pit Bull, then what's the problem? ....

It's unreasonable to expect a dog owner to keep their pet locked up in a yard all the time.

... They could as well want your children removed.

Are my children a hazard to a pit bull?

tinchote

17th July 2007, 22:23

Why? If they keep their Pit Bull away from your children and you keep your children away from their Pit Bull, then what's the problem? They could as well want your children removed.

That's "perfect logic" to show that anyone should be allowed to do anything :s

Daniel

17th July 2007, 22:33

That's "perfect logic" to show that anyone should be allowed to do anything :s
So true :laugh: I may sometimes make some strange comparisons like a dog and a gun being similar but at least I have a point. Eki just goes on like a twit and makes obscenely ridiculous points.......

fandango

17th July 2007, 22:40

The ban in Dublin is for people who live in Council flats. So if you live anywhere vaguely leafy it doesn't apply, as far as I can see. It seems to me that it's lazy legislation. Of course, almost everyone here has a good point, it's an attempt to get rid of the macho lads and their monster dogs, which is a problem in society. But ultimately I can't say it really makes sense.

Malbec

17th July 2007, 23:03

A rather extreme stretch of logic, don't you think? :dozey:

Not really, banning an entire type of dog because some of them have owners who can't bring them up/train them properly is just as drastic.

Daniel

17th July 2007, 23:07

Not really, banning an entire type of dog because some of them have owners who can't bring them up/train them properly is just as drastic.
Just like stopping people from owning guns just because some people can't use them properly is "drastic" as you put it.

Eki

17th July 2007, 23:09

It's unreasonable to expect a dog owner to keep their pet locked up in a yard all the time.
Can you guarantee your children will be locked up in your yard all the time?

Are my children a hazard to a pit bull?
Cars and traffic can be a hazard to your children even if your children aren't a hazard to them. Should we ban all cars? The world doesn't revolve around your children, there are other people too.

Malbec

17th July 2007, 23:21

Just like stopping people from owning guns just because some people can't use them properly is "drastic" as you put it.

The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. A dog is different.

You still haven't explained why its not acceptable to have these types of dogs if you can ensure owners are regulated and have to keep them muzzled while they're outside the house.

Eki

17th July 2007, 23:24

Are my children a hazard to a pit bull?
If people have to kill their pets because of your children, then they certainly are.

schmenke

18th July 2007, 04:09

Can you guarantee your children will be locked up in your yard all the time?

Cars and traffic can be a hazard to your children even if your children aren't a hazard to them. Should we ban all cars? The world doesn't revolve around your children, there are other people too.

Are you suggesting that children and dogs should be compared equally?

I think you're missing the point...
Drivers are governed by traffic regulations which make them, for the most part, predictable. A dog know no regulations or boundries, which make them unpredictable.

Most dog breeds have certain specific characteristics. Pit Bulls are by nature agressive dogs, regardless of the owner. I don't have a problem with legislation to ban them, not just for the safety of my kids, but for the safety of the general population.

And btw, my world revolves around my children.

schmenke

18th July 2007, 04:09

If people have to kill their pets because of your children, then they certainly are.

People don't have to kill their pets because of my children. They have to kill their pets because they pose a real and serious threat to the public.

schmenke

18th July 2007, 04:19

The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. A dog is different.

You still haven't explained why its not acceptable to have these types of dogs if you can ensure owners are regulated and have to keep them muzzled while they're outside the house.

Let's use the example of gun ownership here... A gun can be locked up and unloaded ("muzzled" if you will). So why is gun ownership regulated? Because guns have the potential to cause injury or death. Similarily with agressive dogs, however, dogs are not inanimate making them unpredictable.

Hawkmoon

18th July 2007, 06:02

The problem with banning dog breeds is what do you do about cross breeds? If I have a Pit Bull/Maltese Terrier cross (as weird and unlikely as that may be) do you ban it because it has Pit Bull in it or do you allow it because it's got Maltese Terrier in it? What traits from each breed has the dog inherited?

What do you do about dogs where no breed can be determined? They can be just as dangerous as a pedigree.

We have a British Bulldog and a Jack Russell Terrier/Fox Terrier cross. To look at you would be forgiven for thinking that the bulldog poses a far greater threat to my 18 month old daughter than the Jack Russell. In fact the opposite is true. I'm not worried about either dog but the Jack Russell will snap if pushed too far whilst the bulldog will pretty much tolerate anything. He stands there while my daugther pulls his ears and pokes him in the face. He'll even let her take food out of his bowl whilst he's eating, not that we let her do it.

I guess my point is that appearances can be deceiving. A dog that looks dangerous can be no threat whilst a dog that looks cute and cuddly could be a real danger.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 07:30

Why? If they keep their Pit Bull away from your children and you keep your children away from their Pit Bull, then what's the problem? They could as well want your children removed.

When I was 10 years old I was attacked by a normally friendly neighborhood dog that was a standard poodle/lab mix. I was on neutral property and petting the dog when the attack occurred. The attack did a fine job of shredding my face around the mouth chin and nose. I spent 5 hours on the ER table getting my face sewn back together.

After the event, the dog's owners got rid of the dog. Put down or given away, I don't know.

My parents never sued or threatened to sue.

Even at that young age, I knew something had gone wrong with that particular dog and not all dogs, especially large ones, in general.

After the attack, My love for dogs, especially large ones continued and I was allowed to get a dog of my own the day after the stiches came out. I chose a black German Shepherd/ Lab pup. She was a great dog to grow up with and finally died when I was 18 years old. The whole family cried.

To live in a free socity with abundant personal liberties carries a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of personal responsibility in providing and seeing to the safety of yourself and your family. I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like "those that would choose security over liberty, deserve neither..." I agree with the man.

Because you fear or dislike something doesn't give you the right to prohibit it from those who do, and enjoy them responsibly.

How about to head off global warming and overpopulation, we limit all couples to 2 children, retroactive. Pick out the 2 kids you like the best and turn the rest of them over to the government.

Be careful what you scream to ban, the next group of cowardly idiots may come screaming for something you hold dear.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 07:49

The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. A dog is different.

You still haven't explained why its not acceptable to have these types of dogs if you can ensure owners are regulated and have to keep them muzzled while they're outside the house.

I have many firearms, rifles, shotguns, and handguns through which I have fired 1000's of rounds without killing or injuring any person or animal. The only purpose of my guns is for my own pleasure and recreation. The only danger you face from my firearms is if you and I are in my house, at the same time, and you aren't supposed to be there.
My firearms have all been legally acquired, there is nothing in my past to prohibit my ownership of firearms, and I use them in responsble ways within the law. I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should have to surrender them to ease the mind of a coward.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 08:00

Having looked at the article in question, it looks like the typical knee-jerk, weak and ineffective reaction of local office-holders to prove to their constituants that they stand ever ready to provide an immediate solution to any issue that becomes trendy and loud. The last thing they need is to be voted out of office and have to find a real job. Wonder what kind of new or increased tax they will have to put in place to ensure this small area remains the Mecca of the dog-bite free zones.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 08:03

I have many firearms, rifles, shotguns, and handguns through which I have fired 1000's of rounds without killing or injuring any person or animal. The only purpose of my guns is for my own pleasure and recreation. The only danger you face from my firearms is if you and I are in my house, at the same time, and you aren't supposed to be there.
My firearms have all been legally acquired, there is nothing in my past to prohibit my ownership of firearms, and I use them in responsble ways within the law. I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should have to surrender them to ease the mind of a coward.

The thing is Fiero. Your gun doesn't do things of it's own accord. Dogs for the most part are well behaved but there are times when hunting instincts take over and then you're not in control. My dachshunds will kill anything little that they can get at. It's their instinct because they're hunting dogs. But they would never try and kill another dog and never could due to their size.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 08:26

Are you suggesting that children and dogs should be compared equally?

I think you're missing the point...
Drivers are governed by traffic regulations which make them, for the most part, predictable. A dog know no regulations or boundries, which make them unpredictable.

Most dog breeds have certain specific characteristics. Pit Bulls are by nature agressive dogs, regardless of the owner. I don't have a problem with legislation to ban them, not just for the safety of my kids, but for the safety of the general population.

And btw, my world revolves around my children.

Eki isn't missing the point, you are.

Your children are dear to you and thats ok. Some people don't have children, don't want children, and don't like children. To those people, their pets are just as important to them as your children are to you.

I would bet some people would love to see regulations on children. I would. I'd love to see a ban on children under 3 years of age from resturants, movie theaters, any form of public transportation, especially aircraft, and shopping areas. If I have to listen to a 1 year old cry for 2 hours on an airplane, I damn sure ought to be able to enjoy a cigarette to ease the pain. We are constantly subjected to your infants noises, sounds, and smells but are expected to nod knowingly and politely and say no problem at all. Got news for you jack, it is a problem and it's as annoying as hell. As your child grows, regardless of his upbringing, he becomes just as unpredictable as any dog. He may be sweet and loving at home and then get out with his buddies and lob bricks through car windows, torment dogs and cats, and beat up on old and homeless people. If your kid turns bad, we are going to want him locked up. You'll want him given another chance because he "fell in with the wrong crowd.". If the elder schmenke commits a jailable offense, possibly murder, can we also jail the younger schmenke as a precaution? After all, they are from the same bloodline and breed.

Eki's whole point is that we all have things near and dear to us and just because one person's joy causes another's unease, doesn't mean it should be banned.

Malbec

18th July 2007, 08:31

Hondo

18th July 2007, 08:55

The thing is Fiero. Your gun doesn't do things of it's own accord. Dogs for the most part are well behaved but there are times when hunting instincts take over and then you're not in control. My dachshunds will kill anything little that they can get at. It's their instinct because they're hunting dogs. But they would never try and kill another dog and never could due to their size.

You spoke of one of your dachshunds getting out and killing one of your neighbors chickens. Did he start screaming for a ban on dachshunds? No, he accepted that accidents can and do happen. Although I don't have one, I know people that have pit bulls and there are some around here that are sweet dogs. I knew a guy that fought pit bulls and they aren't all naturally aggressive. He'd had many that when "pitted" for the first time, immediately, hit the ground, rolled over and started yelping.

I personally am not comfortable around dobermans. I never had a bad experience with one, there is just something evil looking about them. But, I don't call for them to be banned, nor would I join in on such a call.

Now, remember me ranting about liberties and responsibilities? Around here your neighbor would have been well within his rights to have shot your dachshund dead on the spot once it started attacking his chickens. Keeping your dog safe by keeping your dog away from his chickens was your responsibility and you failed in it. You can't blame the dog or the neighbor.

Sometime ago my dog Addison was killed after she was struck by a car. We have a leash law here But I had allowed her to run free, knowing she chased cars. I failed in my responsibility to her. My new Yellow Lab, Sweetie is not allowed out side off a leash with out me. She doesn't chase cars but will take off after a rabbit or a cat. I got an electric shock collar to train her with and only had to use it 3 times. Now if she bolts after something, she immediately breaks chase and comes back to me on command. I am being more responsible with this dog.

gadjo_dilo

18th July 2007, 09:13

In my country the government issued a law about the regime of owning dangerous or aggressive dogs. It settles thr breeds considered as dangerous and certain obligations for their owners. For breeds as Pit Bull, Boerbull and Bandog , considered as "dogs for fight or attack" the owners have the obligation to sterilize them.

Ironcally our main problem are the stray dogs.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 09:23

LotusElise

18th July 2007, 09:39

Just like stopping people from owning guns just because some people can't use them properly is "drastic" as you put it.

I've seen this point made a couple of times here, but guns aren't illegal in the UK. Controlled, yes, illegal, no. It's fairly easy to get hold of a shotgun licence for a sporting weapon.

Someone else mentioned muzzling (back to dogs!) which I think is a good idea. A Baskerville muzzle is a useful dog control tool, not just for dogs inclined to snapping, but for dogs who chase other animals, eat or chew inappropriate things or bite at wounds/stitches.
All dogs should be kept under control, regardless of breed. Regulations should be aimed at those who do not control their animals, not owners of particular breeds.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 09:39

If you don't hunt, why would you select a hunting breed for a pet? Should that be part of your bans?

Article 9003.017a : Any individual desiring a canine(s) for the express purposes of household pet(s) and/or companionship shall be banned and prohibited from selecting said canine(s) from any breeds classified as working, hunting, and/or sporting dogs.

Got to protect against that instinct.

You'll find a good portion of dogs are either originally hunting or gun dogs. Doesn't mean they're generally dangerous to people or other dogs purely because of this.

RUN! RUN! BE AFRAID! It's my hunting dogs..... :rolleyes:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2097.JPG

Now tell me does either of those dogs pose a risk to you?

Eki

18th July 2007, 10:04

Eki's whole point is that we all have things near and dear to us and just because one person's joy causes another's unease, doesn't mean it should be banned.
That was my point. Thanks for making it clear, Fiero. I realize people love their children and want to protect them, that's a natural instinct. But thinking the whole world is there just for you and your kids would be selfish.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 10:25

That was my point. Thanks for making it clear, Fiero. I realize people love their children and want to protect them, that's a natural instinct. But thinking the whole world is there just for you and your kids would be selfish.
You're the type of person who'd cut his legs off at the knees to give his feet more freedom.

Loobylou

18th July 2007, 13:00

Eki's whole point is that we all have things near and dear to us and just because one person's joy causes another's unease, doesn't mean it should be banned.

Precisely.

Another point that needs making is that this will not take the dangerous dogs out of the public arena. Mr. Bloggs who has a rottie/staff/shepherd to protect his drug interests isn't going to hand it over & he won't find it a loving home either - he'll carry on using it in his business interests. Whereas law abiding citizens will be doing everything in their power to re-home their pets, or move themselves, rather than see them destroyed, some will probably go to the extent of giving up their homes.

Another law that will not protect the innocent but will not hurt the criminals either.

Daniel - nice pic of the dachsunds. My mother had the family jack russell terrier put to sleep when he bit her - he was defending me - who should have been put to sleep?

BeansBeansBeans

18th July 2007, 13:06

I agree with everything Fiero said.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 13:09

Daniel - nice pic of the dachsunds. My mother had the family jack russell terrier put to sleep when he bit her - he was defending me - who should have been put to sleep?

If Eki is to believed the mother should be the one put down :)

Tbh unless it was serious I know see why you'd put a dog down. My dogs have occasionally bit me but never anything serious.

ShiftingGears

18th July 2007, 13:10

When I was 10 years old I was attacked by a normally friendly neighborhood dog that was a standard poodle/lab mix. I was on neutral property and petting the dog when the attack occurred. The attack did a fine job of shredding my face around the mouth chin and nose. I spent 5 hours on the ER table getting my face sewn back together.

After the event, the dog's owners got rid of the dog. Put down or given away, I don't know.

My parents never sued or threatened to sue.

Even at that young age, I knew something had gone wrong with that particular dog and not all dogs, especially large ones, in general.

After the attack, My love for dogs, especially large ones continued and I was allowed to get a dog of my own the day after the stiches came out. I chose a black German Shepherd/ Lab pup. She was a great dog to grow up with and finally died when I was 18 years old. The whole family cried.

To live in a free socity with abundant personal liberties carries a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of personal responsibility in providing and seeing to the safety of yourself and your family. I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like "those that would choose security over liberty, deserve neither..." I agree with the man.

Because you fear or dislike something doesn't give you the right to prohibit it from those who do, and enjoy them responsibly.

How about to head off global warming and overpopulation, we limit all couples to 2 children, retroactive. Pick out the 2 kids you like the best and turn the rest of them over to the government.

Be careful what you scream to ban, the next group of cowardly idiots may come screaming for something you hold dear.

Great post!

Daniel

18th July 2007, 13:57

To live in a free socity with abundant personal liberties carries a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of personal responsibility in providing and seeing to the safety of yourself and your family. I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like "those that would choose security over liberty, deserve neither..." I agree with the man.

Because you fear or dislike something doesn't give you the right to prohibit it from those who do, and enjoy them responsibly.

How about to head off global warming and overpopulation, we limit all couples to 2 children, retroactive. Pick out the 2 kids you like the best and turn the rest of them over to the government.

Be careful what you scream to ban, the next group of cowardly idiots may come screaming for something you hold dear.

What a load of twaddle. I'm expecting to hear next that your grandfather fought in a war so you could have the right to own whatever gawdamn dog you want to own.

This has nothing to do with Benjamin Franklin or "Liberty" at all. I'm not "free" to drive however fast I want to on the motorway because it's calculated that this is too risky for me to do what i'd like to do. This isn't an infringement of my civil liberties and what my grandfather fought for in Tobruk in WW2. It's simply a government trying to stop me hurting myself and others by doing something that is deemed as being dangerous. Most of the dogs on this list have a proven history of being a danger to humans.

It would be lovely if people could own these dogs and be responsible about it and keep dogs that are a danger contained in a secure yard and keep them away from children but it won't happen. There will always be someone who thinks that their dog is OK and that they don't need a high fence or they don't need to make sure their gate is blocked off properly or that it's ok just to leave their baby or todler alone with the dog for a mere moment. I'd love it if everyone had their brain in gear and did everything to eliminate the risk of dog attacks but people aren't perfect which is why you have laws telling them they can't do something.

Winston Churchill once said "We shall fight them on the beaches" so I challenge you to take your dog to the beach if I'm ever in the neighbourhood and I'll fight it just because some historical figure said something that I'm totally taking out of context and using to prove my own point.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 14:09

You'll find a good portion of dogs are either originally hunting or gun dogs. Doesn't mean they're generally dangerous to people or other dogs purely because of this.

RUN! RUN! BE AFRAID! It's my hunting dogs..... :rolleyes:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2097.JPG

Now tell me does either of those dogs pose a risk to you?

Thank you. The exact same argument can be made by any owner of a dog on the list of breeds to be banned. It is terribly unfair, but amazingly simple to blame the entire breed for the actions of some of the members of that breed. My Lab was bred to retrieve ducks. When I swim her at the lake, she swims past ducks all the time. She doesn't know what a duck is and could care less about a duck. She is going to retrieve her floatie toy that I threw for her and when she gets back, she could still care less about a duck unless it's going to throw her floatie toy back out in the lake for her.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 14:28

What a load of twaddle.

Winston Churchill once said "We shall fight them on the beaches" so I challenge you to take your dog to the beach if I'm ever in the neighbourhood and I'll fight it just because some historical figure said something that I'm totally taking out of context and using to prove my own point.

Is there any meaning to this or are you just enjoying your first ever beer?

Why would you want to fight my dog on a beach? She'd probably love to play tug of war on the beach, but I don't think you'll get her to fight. She'd just wander off.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 14:40

Thank you. The exact same argument can be made by any owner of a dog on the list of breeds to be banned. It is terribly unfair, but amazingly simple to blame the entire breed for the actions of some of the members of that breed. My Lab was bred to retrieve ducks. When I swim her at the lake, she swims past ducks all the time. She doesn't know what a duck is and could care less about a duck. She is going to retrieve her floatie toy that I threw for her and when she gets back, she could still care less about a duck unless it's going to throw her floatie toy back out in the lake for her.

I never mentioned labradors at all.

You've just used the whole "It's someone elses fault and not mine" argument. Why is it that you never hear of a golden retriever or a labrador killing someone? Because they aren't as aggressive as some of the breeds which are to be banned in Dublin. There is a difference between learnt and instinctive behaviour. Any dog owner should know this. Dogs need to be taught how to do some things and some other things just come naturally.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 14:42

Is there any meaning to this or are you just enjoying your first ever beer?

Why would you want to fight my dog on a beach? She'd probably love to play tug of war on the beach, but I don't think you'll get her to fight. She'd just wander off.

I was merely using a famous quote to make a stupid point. I would have thought you'd have noticed this given that this is exactly what you did.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 15:03

I don't agree with dogs being destroyed or anything because that's wrong. But there's no place in a city for something with the instinct, capability and power to kill a person. Even my Dachshunds will kill mice and rats. I'd be all for banning Dachshunds if they weighed the same as me and could kill me!!!!!

How about, instead of banning these large Dachshunds, we give you the legal right to defend yourself with the use of deadly force, firearm if you so choose, against any large Daniel sized dachshunds that attack you. Are willing to accept the responsibility of self-protection, or does the idea of that frighten you also?

schmenke

18th July 2007, 15:14

...... just because one person's joy causes another's unease, doesn't mean it should be banned.

It's not the dog owner's joy that causes unease and call for bans, it's the potential of the dog to cuase harm to the general public.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 15:15

Large Dachshunds like this don't exist so lets not go off topic

Hondo

18th July 2007, 15:16

I was merely using a famous quote to make a stupid point. I would have thought you'd have noticed this given that this is exactly what you did.

It's not exactly what I did. I used a famous quote to warn against the dangers of using and expecting the government to protect you from everything under the sun, as opposed to taking personal responsibility in dealing with things.

You used a famous quote to warn of foreign invasion.

My point was not stupid.

Enjoy your beer.

schmenke

18th July 2007, 15:17

...thinking the whole world is there just for you and your kids would be selfish.

Eki why do you insist on making these kinds of comments? :confused:

Daniel

18th July 2007, 15:28

Eki why do you insist on making these kinds of comments? :confused:
For the sake of being argumentative I'd say.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 15:29

It's not exactly what I did. I used a famous quote to warn against the dangers of using and expecting the government to protect you from everything under the sun, as opposed to taking personal responsibility in dealing with things.

You used a famous quote to warn of foreign invasion.

My point was not stupid.

Enjoy your beer.

I don't drink.

Your comment is used completely out of context. It's not about banning dangerous dogs in any way shape or form.

Hondo

18th July 2007, 15:42

Large Dachshunds like this don't exist so lets not go off topic

It's not off topic. Large Dachshunds may not exist and by the same token, all bull dogs are not vicious killers. Must every thing that frightens you be banned?

What causes these "rashes" of dog attacks at the same time? Do these dogs have a union? Do they belong to some club and all agree to attack something at the same time? Or, does the media take one sensational story on a slow news day and start combing through police and animal control log books working very hard to "alert" the public to the dangers of the ongoing
canine feeding frenzy?

For what it's worth, I believe that all dog owners and cat owners should be responsible for their pets. If a dog does get out and attack somebody, unprovoked, then the animal should be put down or moved. But just that animal. On the other hand, if my pit bull is in his own fenced back yard and your kid comes over the fence into the yard, well that one is on you. I have seen many a dog in a fenced yard being tormented and teased by children, and if that dog gets a shot at one of those kids, he's gonna take it.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 15:56

It's not off topic. Large Dachshunds may not exist and by the same token, all bull dogs are not vicious killers. Must every thing that frightens you be banned?

All people that drive down the motorway at 150mph aren't going to kill someone. But they're more dangerous than driving at 70mph. Same with dogs.

Is it that hard to understand?

schmenke

18th July 2007, 16:07

...If a dog does get out and attack somebody, unprovoked, then the animal should be put down or moved. But just that animal. ...

But that is reacting to injury already done. The purpose of the ban is to prevent the injury in the first place.

The reason that posession of a firearm is ilegal (around here anyways :mark: ) is to prevent injury or death. Under your logic the firearm should be removed only once someone has been shot with it :mark: .

Daniel

18th July 2007, 16:19

But that is reacting to injury already done. The purpose of the ban is to prevent the injury in the first place.

The reason that posession of a firearm is ilegal (around here anyways :mark: ) is to prevent injury or death. Under your logic the firearm should be removed only once someone has been shot with it :mark: .

How dare you Schmenke! How dare you inconvenience all these people who legitimately use their guns without killing someone just so that someone can not be killed. Shame on you! Shame on you! *gives Schmenke the evil eye*

Firstgear

18th July 2007, 16:25

All people that drive down the motorway at 150mph aren't going to kill someone. But they're more dangerous than driving at 70mph. Same with dogs.

Is it that hard to understand?

Daniel, while you're finishing that beer at 150mph on the motorway, feel free to use your free hand to talk on your cellphone. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean you should stop doing something you enjoy.

Fiero - a tiger is just another breed of cat. Do you support ownership of tigers as pets for people who live in the city? What about bears? Wolves?

Daniel

18th July 2007, 16:28

Daniel, while you're finishing that beer at 150mph on the motorway, feel free to use your free hand to talk on your cellphone. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean you should stop doing something you enjoy.

Oh I do feel free to do this ;) I've got freedom to do whatever I want to do and the law can't do didly squat till I actually hurt someone :D

Bears!?!?!?! Don't be stupid. Tigers are OK but bears are just silly :p

Eki

18th July 2007, 16:59

Large Dachshunds like this don't exist so lets not go off topic
If we start crossbreeding Dachshunds with Great Danes, then one day they might exist.

tinchote

18th July 2007, 17:04

Daniel, while you're finishing that beer at 150mph on the motorway, feel free to use your free hand to talk on your cellphone. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean you should stop doing something you enjoy.

Fiero - a tiger is just another breed of cat. Do you support ownership of tigers as pets for people who live in the city? What about bears? Wolves?

:up:

If we are to follow Fiero's, Eki's, and other's logic here, there should be no laws at all. After all, all those annoying laws are forbidding me of enjoying things I might want to :rolleyes:

schmenke

18th July 2007, 17:05

If we start crossbreeding Dachshunds with Great Danes, then one day they might exist.

I pity the Daschshund if the Great Dane is the male... :s :p :

Daniel

18th July 2007, 18:00

I pity the Daschshund if the Great Dane is the male... :s :p :
Tbh I think Dachshunds should be banned if the female Dachshund is going to get injured by the male Great Dane. Purely if to protect my liberty of course :)

BeansBeansBeans

18th July 2007, 18:53

Daniel, while you're finishing that beer at 150mph on the motorway, feel free to use your free hand to talk on your cellphone. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean you should stop doing something you enjoy.

You can't responsibly drive at 150mph whilst drunk.

You can responsibly own a German Shepherd.

Firstgear

18th July 2007, 19:33

You can't responsibly drive at 150mph whilst drunk.

You can responsibly own a German Shepherd.

So.......anybody that can prove that they are responsible (at all times) should be allowed to own one of these dogs in the city? Is this what you are saying?

Daniel

18th July 2007, 19:35

So.......anybody that can prove that they are responsible (at all times) should be allowed to own one of these dogs in the city? Is this what you are saying?
And how would I prove this? ;)

Hazell B

18th July 2007, 19:35

Even with my best efforts if I owned a dangerous dog it could always in some way be possibly dangerous to someone. If you're walking a large dog which is aggressive you're never truly in control.
.... there's no place in a city for something with the instinct, capability and power to kill a person.

I stopped reading the thread when I came to these words.

Adding 'or indeed any other dog, etc' to the end of it would be exactly what I was going to say myself.

There is no place for many, many dog breeds in towns and cities. Some have no place in the entire UK. Their crosses are almost as bad with some breeds, and worse in others according to some EU countries.

I'm a damned good dog owner. Probably in the top five percent of owners, which as a trained behaviourist I should be, yet one of my dogs is not to be totally trusted in large crowds. He attacks other dogs and one day might just mistake a child running past him for a large dog (after all, can you tell exactly how good a dog's eyesight is? I can't!) before I have chance to stop him. He's stronger than me, but still lighter than an Akita.

It's very well saying that owners are to blame - of course they are! However, if telling us humans that drink driving, eating chunks of lard and jumping off mountain sides with elastic bands tied to our belts hasn't stopped us doing it, why would we suddenly all decide to take dog ownership classes? We all use the 'it won't happen to me' safety blanket and assume our dogs aren't what anyone's talking about when they say 'potentially' dangerous.

All dogs could be dangerous to some extent.
Many dogs should not be allowed in certain populated areas, except police/rescue dogs. Frankly, can anyone here tell me how to otherwise decide which dogs? I can't think of a way.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 19:53

I'm a damned good dog owner. Probably in the top five percent of owners, which as a trained behaviourist I should be, yet one of my dogs is not to be totally trusted in large crowds. He attacks other dogs and one day might just mistake a child running past him for a large dog (after all, can you tell exactly how good a dog's eyesight is? I can't!) before I have chance to stop him. He's stronger than me, but still lighter than an Akita.

Using Ekilogic® it's obvious from this that we should ban people who are not fat from having dogs which could hurt someone! :rolleyes:

You know what? The person who was handling the Akita that killed my dog was a large, strong man who if there was a person who could handle a dog like that was the right person to be handling a dog like that. But he couldn't handle his dog. What happened happened and I'm over that but if I was a parent and my child had been killed not a day would go buy when I wouldn't wish that people were not stupid enough to own such dangerous animals.

I love dogs. I just don't like people or other pets being seriously injured or killed.

Hazell B

18th July 2007, 20:02

I love horses, but know they kill dozens of people every year, so therefore don't take horses to public parks. Can't understand why dogs aren't seen as the dangerous animals they can be in the same way as horses and so on.

By the way, wasn't somebody on here saying their dog had been attacked a year or so ago in it's own garden (sorry, I forget who) and that it was a nice dog in the past that had attacked? Banning certain breeds will help stop similar cases.

BDunnell

18th July 2007, 20:10

Many dogs should not be allowed in certain populated areas, except police/rescue dogs. Frankly, can anyone here tell me how to otherwise decide which dogs? I can't think of a way.

Neither can I. This is a really difficult issue, even for someone like myself who really doesn't like dogs and never will. While, for me, getting rid of all dogs would be a blessing, I realise that this would be an absurd idea. As you say, there is no way of coming up with a classification, and even less of a way of deciding who constitutes a potentially sensible dog owner and who doesn't.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 20:49

Neither can I. This is a really difficult issue, even for someone like myself who really doesn't like dogs and never will. While, for me, getting rid of all dogs would be a blessing, I realise that this would be an absurd idea. As you say, there is no way of coming up with a classification, and even less of a way of deciding who constitutes a potentially sensible dog owner and who doesn't.
Just out of curiosity would you be scared of this little guy? :mark:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2158.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG

BeansBeansBeans

18th July 2007, 21:02

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2158.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG

Awwwww. If anything he should be banned for being too cute.

BeansBeansBeans

18th July 2007, 21:09

There is no place for many, many dog breeds in towns and cities. Some have no place in the entire UK.

I've no doubt that you are right. Like you say though, it's very difficult to decide which breeds get banned and which don't. I was particularly shocked by the appearance of the German Shepherd on Dublin Council's list, mainly because the few examples of the breed I've come into contact with are gentle, well-behaved animals. In the wrong hands, they could be dangerous, but in the hands of a responsible owner, they surely pose little threat? You mentioned that your own dog cannot be completely trusted around children and other dogs, but as a responsible owner you would not put a child or other dog at risk. Therefore would it be fair to remove or destroy your dog? I don't think so.

Sadly, I don't think there are any easy answers.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 21:32

Awwwww. If anything he should be banned for being too cute.

What's even worse is that our two Dachshunds pick on him and will quite often force him out of the kennel :( I do sometimes wonder if racism is not something linked purely to humans.

Daniel

18th July 2007, 21:57

I've no doubt that you are right. Like you say though, it's very difficult to decide which breeds get banned and which don't. I was particularly shocked by the appearance of the German Shepherd on Dublin Council's list, mainly because the few examples of the breed I've come into contact with are gentle, well-behaved animals. In the wrong hands, they could be dangerous, but in the hands of a responsible owner, they surely pose little threat? You mentioned that your own dog cannot be completely trusted around children and other dogs, but as a responsible owner you would not put a child or other dog at risk. Therefore would it be fair to remove or destroy your dog? I don't think so.

Sadly, I don't think there are any easy answers.

I very much agree in regards to German Shepherds. In general they are some of the best behaved, most well mannered dogs you will see. I've seen many a German Shepherd stand by while a small yappy little thing jumps at it when other dogs would have just bitten back..

BDunnell

18th July 2007, 23:17

Just out of curiosity would you be scared of this little guy? :mark:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2158.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG

Yes, afraid so, especially if I was in the same room as it.

Hawkmoon

19th July 2007, 01:39

What constitutes a dog attack? Is a simple bite enough? Does blood have to be shed? Is it only an attack when serious injury or death occurs?

When I was a kid we had a chihuahua that was some kind of demon spawn. It would literally bite the hand that fed it. Nobody was safe near the thing. Now when a chiuahua bites you it's startling and can hurt but the little bugger isn't going to kill you but it might be able to do some serious damage to a baby or toddler though so maybe we should ban chihuahuas too?

Another question that I think has been overlooked is why ban these dogs in cities only? If these dogs are that dangerous shouldn't country folk be protected too?

Malbec

19th July 2007, 07:47

Just out of curiosity would you be scared of this little guy? :mark:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2158.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fenix1983/Files/Dog/DSC_2172.JPG

That thing looks like it could cause quite some damage to an unattended baby, shouldn't it be banned?

Loobylou

19th July 2007, 08:11

IWhy is it that you never hear of a golden retriever or a labrador killing someone? Because they aren't as aggressive as some of the breeds which are to be banned in Dublin.

Er... woman in France a little while ago - had her face ripped off by a labrador. Not sure whether it was a golden, black or chocolate though.

Loobylou

19th July 2007, 08:16

By the way, wasn't somebody on here saying their dog had been attacked a year or so ago in it's own garden (sorry, I forget who) and that it was a nice dog in the past that had attacked? Banning certain breeds will help stop similar cases.

Our dog got attacked by our neighbours granddaughters dog. Mutley is, according to Dogs Trust, a mastiff cross, the attacker was a Bichon Frise. Small critter, roughly the size of a car washing sponge, managed to scar Mutleys muzzle.

Daniel

19th July 2007, 08:21

That thing looks like it could cause quite some damage to an unattended baby, shouldn't it be banned?

Yes because Jack Russell's have a history of that.

He's more likely to do this.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/1107891

Er... woman in France a little while ago - had her face ripped off by a labrador. Not sure whether it was a golden, black or chocolate though.

Exception to the rule perhaps?

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 09:33

I thought about this a bit more while driving yesterday.
Maybe the existing laws on breeding and selling certain breeds shoould just be tightened up or actually applied properly?
Getting rid of puppy farms which sell their animals indiscriminately would take away some of the supply for irresponsible owners of "trophy dogs". Likewise clamping down on people selling poorly brought-up crossbreeds in pubs - I'm thinking the people who are supplying the local hoodies around here with Staffy crosses which the hoodies then believe are pitbulls.
We haven't had any dog attacks here, but there are a lot of overweight, badly trained bull breed examples with those big studded harnesses on.

Flat.tyres

19th July 2007, 11:59

I like all dogs and know the joy they can bring to their owners and their families. I also accept that some dogs are trained to be aggressive by their owners as some sort of macho thing and that occassionally a dog that has been well behaved and good natured all its life can turn and become aggressive. owning, training and looking after a dog is a privilidge and the owner has to take responsibility to ensure that people are safe from their pets but sometimes the only course of action is to have a dog painlessly put down for everyones safety.

I dont like all people and infact cannot stand quite a few of them that seem to bring nothing but misery, sadness and pain to those around them. I also accept that some people train their pets to be aggressive, abuse or neglect them. Maltreated pets either cower in fear or learn to bite back against their abusers. The overwhelming majority of people take great responsibility to ensure that people are safe from their pets but sometimes, despite all good intentions, an animal may attack and need to be put down. If, on the other hand, it is the owners that have abused the dog and conditioned it to attack, then I will house the dog and change its behaviour and perhaps we can put the owner down instead.

sounds fair to me.

Loobylou

19th July 2007, 12:37

Exception to the rule perhaps?

So labradors get that priviledge, whereas other breeds don't? Hypocrisy.

I want all Bichon Frise banned from suburban areas as one fuzz ball with a neurotic owner can't control hers.

Nope, no matter how many times I read that, it just looks like a knee-jerk reaction that hasn't been thought out properly.

Flat.tyres - agree whole heartedly with that last post of yours. :up:

Daniel

19th July 2007, 13:02

So labradors get that priviledge, whereas other breeds don't? Hypocrisy.

I want all Bichon Frise banned from suburban areas as one fuzz ball with a neurotic owner can't control hers.

Nope, no matter how many times I read that, it just looks like a knee-jerk reaction that hasn't been thought out properly.

Flat.tyres - agree whole heartedly with that last post of yours. :up:

Labradors don't get a privelige :rolleyes: Labradors aren't world renowned for attacking people so there is no need to restrict the ownership of Labradors. It's not hipocrisy. It's common bloody sense. As one of the people said. A tiger is just a cat and if people can own cats and let them run free then why not have tigers and let them run free. Just prosecute people if and when the tigers actually hurt someone and not before!!!!!

Likewise Bichon Frise aren't world renowned for being involved in fatal dog attacks or killing other dogs. If you are an experienced dog owner you will know that dogs are territorial animals and sometimes will not like other dogs around their home and that sometimes these things happened. Mutley wasn't seriously harmed so I fail to see how you can compare a Bichon Frise with dogs that KILL people for gods sake?

If I had to chose between being scratched on the face and killed by a dog I'd use Ekilogic ® I'd just commit suicide before either could happen. What would you chose?

No matter how many times YOU read it it looks like a knee jerk reaction but to me it looks like a great way of making people more safe. I find it distressing that you play the "Animal lover" card when clearly people like Hazell and myself who have made many a post about our love for our dogs agree with people not being able to keep dangerous animals which could cause serious injury or death to other people.

Loobylou

19th July 2007, 13:15

...
Likewise Bichon Frise aren't world renowned for being involved in fatal dog attacks or killing other dogs. If you are an experienced dog owner you will know that dogs are territorial animals and sometimes will not like other dogs around their home and that sometimes these things happened. Mutley wasn't seriously harmed so I fail to see how you can compare a Bichon Frise with dogs that KILL people for gods sake?

At the time the owner had a baby of less than 6mths. Jay was brave enough to attack a dog approx ten times its size, what do you think it could have done to a baby that was smaller than it was?

... find it distressing that you play the "Animal lover" card when clearly people like Hazell and myself who have made many a post about our love for our dogs agree with people not being able to keep dangerous animals which could cause serious injury or death to other people.

Your 'distress' does not bother me in the slightest where this issue is concerned. I am an animal lover & find humans far less attractive in their manner & demeanor. Because Hazell & yourself have a different opinion to mine does not make either of us less of a dog lover, I'm just of the opinion that breed specific legislation is rubbish, whereas you two aren't.

You haven't responded to my point about 'dangerous' dogs still being owned by those that would manipulate them to their worst potential & that the ban will ony apply to council tenants. So if you can afford to own your own home the dog is no longer 'dangerous'?

Daniel

19th July 2007, 13:28

At the time the owner had a baby of less than 6mths. Jay was brave enough to attack a dog approx ten times its size, what do you think it could have done to a baby that was smaller than it was?

Your 'distress' does not bother me in the slightest where this issue is concerned. I am an animal lover & find humans far less attractive in their manner & demeanor. Because Hazell & yourself have a different opinion to mine does not make either of us less of a dog lover, I'm just of the opinion that breed specific legislation is rubbish, whereas you two aren't.

You haven't responded to my point about 'dangerous' dogs still being owned by those that would manipulate them to their worst potential & that the ban will ony apply to council tenants. So if you can afford to own your own home the dog is no longer 'dangerous'?

My apologies. I'll shoot that one down so quick it's not funny. Basically if it's council housing the council have a liability.

You are showing your lack of knowlege again. A baby is not a dog and a dog is not a baby. Dogs don't like other strange dogs being in or around their territory. That's why when a person walks past a house with a dog the dog inside probably wouldn't care but if a dog came past it's tail would go up and it might start to bark.

How do you propose that there be PRO-active rather than REactive action on issues like this which are a serious threat to people. It's all fine and dandy to use a lame catchphrase about deeds and breeds but at the end of the day the child is already dead or the victim disfigured for life. What is better? Bodily harm or inconvenience for some dog owners.

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 13:49

Reply reconsidered and deleted.

Robinho

19th July 2007, 13:52

Er... woman in France a little while ago - had her face ripped off by a labrador. Not sure whether it was a golden, black or chocolate though.

i assume you are talking about the face transplant women? in this case the women was unconcious and here loyal faithful dog stayed by her side trying to revive her, licking at first, eventually causing serious damage. this was not an unprovoked dog attack, which is what most of the thread is about.

i have read the whole thread and i have to say i mostly agree with everything on both side - i offer no answers. it seems like a lesser of two evils situation. if a successful non-breeding of dangerous breeds could be successful then the issue would disappear in a generation, but this is non-practical in the least, and besides, any mistreated or delibertley trained dog could be a danger.

i want to feel safe and for my daughter to be safe, and deplore the irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs. i would ask why people feel the need to own inappropriate animals - if it is purely a status or machismo thing, then they have no need to own any dog. these people and dogs are the risk - to clamp down on all of a breed seems unnecessary, and will impare real animal lovers.

i understand the fevour from both sides, we own a Jack Russell, and he is feisty, but fantastic with the 13month old baby and has been since birth, but we have to be careful not to leave him alone with her, and with other animals.

the problem with blanket bans is the classification. where do you stop - a few breeds are overtly dangerous, and have been bred for years to fight, be agressive etc and have no place as pets. can the people who own these not be happy with a different dog - i'm sure they do not love their pets, just another label like burberry - is it a coincidence that Pit Bull tyoe dogs seem to be accompanied by Burberry etc

but what about cross breeds, new breeds, rare breeds. all could miss the ban but be equally dangerous.

one answer could be tighter licensing of owners, but i fear that would just drive the problem further undergorund, which would be harder to police and also probably detrimental to the animals welfare.

tight controls on dangerous breeds, muzzles, leads etc in public and severe penalties for owners who animals that do hurt people or who ignore the rules would help, but would not address the problem completley, and likely those who are dangerous now would flout the rules still.

a ban on all dogs, maybe even all pets, in council homes in cities would alleviate the city issue to some extent, but that is a social and class discrimination action that would be doubtless unfair to some or most, and would miss the bad owners outside the council system, however, many private rented homes do not allow pets, why should councils? after all its their property and they pay for the upkeep and damage.

i'm still no closer to an answer, there are dangerous animals, bad owners and in some circumstances a combination of both. these should be marshalled, but without eroding the freedom of the majority of pet owners who are responsible and probably own relatively safe animals, impossible maybe?!

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 13:53

On consideration, I don't think I can add anything to the above post. :up:

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 14:03

Thanks for that summing-up.

It's true though, you cannot compare a well-trained, obedient German Shepherd from a loving family home with the unfortunate dog of one of those vile chavs who have been caught making Staff crosses fight in lifts.

There's also a point I tried to make earlier but got too ranty: whatever happened to children being educated not to go near strange dogs? I and all my friends at infant school had been ordered by our parents not to touch any dog without asking its owner's permission first. I still follow this rule now and it has served me well.

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 14:07

There's also a point I tried to make earlier but got too ranty: whatever happened to children being educated not to go near strange dogs? I and all my friends at infant school had been ordered by our parents not to touch any dog without asking its owner's permission first. I still follow this rule now and it has served me well.

That was never a problem for me, as I never wanted to go anywhere near a dog — in fact, I was (and am) more concerned about one approaching me without permission!

Daniel

19th July 2007, 14:33

Excellent post Robinho :up:

I myself would love it if responsible owners could own whatever they want and irresponsible owners be barred from owning such animals but as you say it's not that simple. You can't simply swab people and look for traces of Burberry clothing and deny them the right to own a dog that is legal to own. You have to presume that someone is innocent until an attack actually occurs and even then you need to prove guilt. The problem is that the damage has already been done! Someone's young child is killed, someone's loved pet is seriously hurt or killed or someone's face gets ripped apart. Plenty of things that are fun are illegal. Why should dogs be any different? :confused: What are the benefits of owning a Pit Bull over owning a Golden Retriever? :mark: Why not just own a less dangerous dog and it's all good?

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 14:44

Flat.tyres

19th July 2007, 15:07

BDunnell, may I ask what it is that scares you about dogs? Have you had a bad experience with one or is it something else?

(I'm not condemning - people are scared of all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons.)

my phobia of dogs eminates from a drunken night out in a dodgy nightclub in Southampton.

woke up in the morning and did a Coyote ;)

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 15:19

BDunnell, may I ask what it is that scares you about dogs? Have you had a bad experience with one or is it something else?

(I'm not condemning - people are scared of all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons.)

Of course. I was frightened by one at an early age (I think it ran over to me, started jumping up at me in a threatening way, and so on) and have never really got over it. Even now, if person is walking a dog along the pavement towards me and the dog starts making a beeline for me, I will take avoiding action to get away from it.

In fact, it's not just dogs. I don't really like being near any animals, as I hate the idea of being bitten by one or being scratched by its claws.

Brown, Jon Brow

19th July 2007, 15:26

From 1st July 2007 and in the interest of good estate management, Dublin City Council has introduced a ban on the following dog breeds or crosses of these breeds with other dogs, within their housing estates and flat complexes:

* American Pit Bull Terrier
* Staffordshire Bull Terrier
* English Pit Bull Terrier
* Bull Mastiff
* Doberman Pinscher
* German Shepherd (Alsatian)
* Rhodesian Ridgeback
* Rottweiler
* Japanese Akita
* Japanese Tosa

I don't see any reason why people need dogs like these in a town??

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 15:39

LotusElise

19th July 2007, 16:09

I've just Googled "Akita" and it seems that the name can refer to two different breeds. The "Akita Inu" is the traditional Japanese dog which is kept as a pet and said to have a good temperament. It is a large version of the Shiba Inu, the most popular pet dog in Japan.
The ordinary Akita appears to be an American version of this dog - this is the one with the bad reputation. Will Dublin Council know this and take it into account?

I don't actually know which one the Akita I used to walk was.

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 16:22

BDunnell - thanks for sharing. Have you ever thought that you'd like to be less afraid of animals? I only say that because I can't imagine running a mile every time I see a dog or other creature. There are loads of them where I live, too.
Phobias suck. I have a couple myself, but that's o/t. ;)

Only in so far as I could then be comfortable around them. I'm not much of an animal lover, though this doesn't mean to say that I think we should be cruel to them or kill all of them.

Dave B

19th July 2007, 19:04

Using Ekilogic® it's obvious from this that we should ban people who are not fat from having dogs which could hurt someone! :rolleyes:
But surely Ekilogic® would reason that it's all George W Bush's fault ;)

Daniel

19th July 2007, 20:06

But surely Ekilogic® would reason that it's all George W Bush's fault ;)
Surely only the most boneheaded of people would argue that nearly everything is GWB's fault though! ;)

Eki

19th July 2007, 20:28

BDunnell - thanks for sharing. Have you ever thought that you'd like to be less afraid of animals? I only say that because I can't imagine running a mile every time I see a dog or other creature. There are loads of them where I live, too.
Phobias suck. I have a couple myself, but that's o/t. ;)
That's true. Some people are homophobic, but I don't think that's enough a reason to get rid of all homosexuals.

Malbec

19th July 2007, 21:20

A tiger is just a cat and if people can own cats and let them run free then why not have tigers and let them run free.

Your arguments really aren't helped by nonsense like this.

A tiger isn't a cat. It can't mate with your average tabby, hence it isn't in the same species. It belongs to the same genus as the cat and thats where the similarities end.

One might as well try to start arguing about banning ownership of wolverines in Dublin for all the relevance that holds.

You claim that Jack Russells don't have a history of attacking babies but you're missing my point. Any dog in the wrong circumstances can kill or seriously injure a baby or child.

Its highly simplistic to argue that a particular type of dog is inherently violent or aggressive whilst ignoring the effect of upbringing. German shepherds in my experience are loyal and friendly. However during WW1 they were used specifically to go out into No Mans Land to kill wounded enemy troops left behind after an attack. Now is the difference in temperament between domestic and military German Shepherds due to upbringing? Hmm let me see....

Again with pit bulls, there is a strong argument for saying that ownership from less well endowed or criminally inclined males who specifically train them to be aggressive results in their stigmatisation rather than their inherent character.

There are plenty of other ways of controlling large dogs that you continue to ignore, muzzling for instance....

Looking at the bigger picture, you suggest that 'dangerous' dogs be banned in order to prevent deaths. Using that argument one could very easily ban a whole host of activities and objects, some of which may hit rather close to home. As has been said previously one ought to be careful of kneejerk steps that end up making this country more of a nanny state.

Hazell B

19th July 2007, 21:39

You mentioned that your own dog cannot be completely trusted around children and other dogs, but as a responsible owner you would not put a child or other dog at risk. Therefore would it be fair to remove or destroy your dog? I don't think so.

You've totally missed the point :mark:

I would never have got the dog if I lived in a Council house in a city. He's a country dog, and I live in the country. Where I to suddenly get serious brain sickness and move to a town I'd have to look at smaller, town-friendly breeds like Beagles. Kipper the ripper would go back to the RSPCA who suplied him, as agreed when we adopted him.

Nobody's pointed out the obvious here in this thread - Dublin's Council have obviously had problems within their housing estates involving these breeds and their owners. They won't have just come up with this plan for the fun of it between other jobs, will they? If their dog wardens can't cope with masses of ill trained, ever-pregnant German Shepherds roaming the streets causing crashes and mayhem, what choice do they have?

Brown, Jon Brow

19th July 2007, 21:49

If their dog wardens can't cope with masses of ill trained, ever-pregnant German Shepherds roaming the streets causing crashes and mayhem, what choice do they have?

Give the dogs ASBO's ??? :mark:

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 21:54

Nobody's pointed out the obvious here in this thread - Dublin's Council have obviously had problems within their housing estates involving these breeds and their owners. They won't have just come up with this plan for the fun of it between other jobs, will they? If their dog wardens can't cope with masses of ill trained, ever-pregnant German Shepherds roaming the streets causing crashes and mayhem, what choice do they have?

This is a very good point. Whenever politicians or officials do something that people disagree with, which is inevitably any time they do something, it is worth bearing in mind that there is always a reason. In our democratic countries, it is very rare for lawmakers to do something just to piss people off. This is, of course, not to say that we should meekly accept every decision that comes our way.

Daniel

19th July 2007, 21:58

Your arguments really aren't helped by nonsense like this.

A tiger isn't a cat. It can't mate with your average tabby, hence it isn't in the same species. It belongs to the same genus as the cat and thats where the similarities end.

One might as well try to start arguing about banning ownership of wolverines in Dublin for all the relevance that holds.

You claim that Jack Russells don't have a history of attacking babies but you're missing my point. Any dog in the wrong circumstances can kill or seriously injure a baby or child.

Its highly simplistic to argue that a particular type of dog is inherently violent or aggressive whilst ignoring the effect of upbringing. German shepherds in my experience are loyal and friendly. However during WW1 they were used specifically to go out into No Mans Land to kill wounded enemy troops left behind after an attack. Now is the difference in temperament between domestic and military German Shepherds due to upbringing? Hmm let me see....

Again with pit bulls, there is a strong argument for saying that ownership from less well endowed or criminally inclined males who specifically train them to be aggressive results in their stigmatisation rather than their inherent character.

No you're missing the point! Nearly all of the breeds listed have a history of seriously injuring people and in some cases killing people. Don't debate it. A good deal of these attacks are made by the dogs of people who are perfectly nice people and who treated their dog as best they could. Dogs are not tame animals as people seem to think and some of them are just not safe to own in the opinions of many people and the good people who are in control of the Dublin council.

A tiger is a cat. It comes from the same family :)

Here are some actual statistics for you

When the South Australian Health Commission study found that the following six specific breeds accounted for 75% of all the dog attacks even though they only represented 21.5% of the dog population, the issue of breed representation was considered in more detail: German Shepherd (4.2 over representation ie. the proportion of attacks attributed to this breed compared with the proportion of this breed in the overall population), Bull Terrier (5.4 over representation), Dobermann (4.0), Rottweiler (2.6), Blue Heeler (2.4) and Collie (1.2).2 (http://www.petnet.com.au/dcue/chapt10/popup10-29.htm#Thompson%20P.%201991)

http://www.petnet.com.au/dcue/chapt10/popup10-29.htm

Make of that what you will......

You talk about dangerous activities? Are you talking about things I've done like paintballing, skydiving and spectating at motorsport events? All things which I chose to do. If the chute didn't open and I went splat MY CHOICE. If A paintball caught me in the throat and killed me MY CHOICE and if Carlos Sainz rolled over squashed me to death at a rally and then started singing "Stand by your man" by Tammy Wynette then it was MY CHOICE to be there.

The pensioner who was set upon in Perth back in the 90's by a pack of dogs and mauled to death did not chose to be killed. If I want to do dangerous things it's my choice but I'm not having someone subject me and others to undue danger just because they want to own a particular dog because their genitalia is too small and they don't want to own something like a Beagle or a Jack Russell which is just as much of a dog and of very little danger to me.

Daniel

19th July 2007, 22:05

This is a very good point. Whenever politicians or officials do something that people disagree with, which is inevitably any time they do something, it is worth bearing in mind that there is always a reason. In our democratic countries, it is very rare for lawmakers to do something just to piss people off. This is, of course, not to say that we should meekly accept every decision that comes our way.
Exactly :up:

Hazell. Pregnant German Shepherd's roaming the street? I have visions of them in tracksuits pushing prams :p

Hazell B

19th July 2007, 22:05

Give the dogs ASBO's ??? :mark:

:p :
Council Man "So, Mr Dog, what's your name? Address? Date of Birth? Owner's name?"
Mr Dog "Woof!"

If you can't find out where it lives, you can't serve an ASBO.
If you haven't the staff to follow it home, you can't serve an ASBO.

Simple, really.
Alternative is to just shoot loose dogs in the street, of course. Which would only work until a kid gets blasted instead .....

Eki

19th July 2007, 22:07

A tiger is a cat. It comes from the same family :)

Am I my mother? I come from the same family.

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 22:08

You talk about dangerous activities? Are you talking about things I've done like paintballing, skydiving and spectating at motorsport events? All things which I chose to do. If the chute didn't open and I went splat MY CHOICE. If A paintball caught me in the throat and killed me MY CHOICE and if Carlos Sainz rolled over squashed me to death at a rally and then started singing "Stand by your man" by Tammy Wynette then it was MY CHOICE to be there.

The pensioner who was set upon in Perth back in the 90's by a pack of dogs and mauled to death did not chose to be killed. If I want to do dangerous things it's my choice but I'm not having someone subject me and others to undue danger just because they want to own a particular dog because their genitalia is too small and they don't want to own something like a Beagle or a Jack Russell which is just as much of a dog and of very little danger to me.

Hang on, though — there are people who might say that you going skydiving subjects them to undue danger, because the aircraft could crash onto their house and kill them. It's tenuous, I know, but so is the idea that all dogs of these types are dangerous under any circumstances.

As I said, I can see why Dublin council might want to impose a ban, but on reflection there are so many things that could end up being banned via the same rationale. Would you seek to forbid aerobatic manoeuvres at airshows, for example, on the grounds that they are inherently more dangerous to those spectating and others than flying straight and level?

Daniel

19th July 2007, 22:10

Am I my mother? I come from the same family.
No. But you are an idiot if you keep on making comments like that.

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 22:10

Alternative is to just shoot loose dogs in the street, of course. Which would only work until a kid gets blasted instead .....

I have long been in favour of urban fox hunting. Get a load of people to ride around London on the open tailgates of old Range Rovers, blasting the filthy, anti-social vermin while they're having sex round the back of our garages and keeping us all awake.

Hazell B

19th July 2007, 22:10

Hazell. Pregnant German Shepherd's roaming the street? I have visions of them in tracksuits pushing prams :p

With curlers until noon, then a bottle of Bud for lunch? It's plausible :p :

One of my customers has a tiny 8 month old Toy Yorkshire Terrier. Her paws fit on my finger ends and her face is smaller than my fist. She's gorgous! Anyway, two weeks ago she was playing with another dog and suddenly scarpered after a rabbit in the garden. It was larger than her.

Shows any dog, however highly bred by us, still has the instinct (if perhaps not the means) to do what comes naturally.

Eki

19th July 2007, 22:11

No. But you are an idiot if you keep on making comments like that.
Same to you too.

Brown, Jon Brow

19th July 2007, 22:14

What about the animal welfare issue.

These dogs are unsuitable pets for people who cannot or will not provide a considerable amount of daily exercise for their dogs, both physical and mental.

But that can also be applied to other less aggressive breeds like Border Collies and Retrievers that don't 'belong' in a town environment.

Daniel

19th July 2007, 22:17

Hang on, though — there are people who might say that you going skydiving subjects them to undue danger, because the aircraft could crash onto their house and kill them. It's tenuous, I know, but so is the idea that all dogs of these types are dangerous under any circumstances.

As I said, I can see why Dublin council might want to impose a ban, but on reflection there are so many things that could end up being banned via the same rationale. Would you seek to forbid aerobatic manoeuvres at airshows, for example, on the grounds that they are inherently more dangerous to those spectating and others than flying straight and level?

Which is why there are regulations governing the performance of aerobatic manouevers as you well know :) When I did skydiving it was done over a non-populated area :)

See for yourself :)

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pinjarra&ie=UTF8&ll=-32.624629,115.868511&spn=0.064337,0.1157&z=13&iwloc=addr&om=1

Daniel

19th July 2007, 22:18

Same to you too.
Listen. I'm not the one making stupid comments. I'm keeping the discussion on topic. If you're going to contribute to the discussion then great but if you're just going to make stupid posts like that one then you can't complain when someone calls you out for playing the fool.

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 22:19

Which is why there are regulations governing the performance of aerobatic manouevers as you well know :) When I did skydiving it was done over a non-populated area :)

See for yourself :)

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pinjarra&ie=UTF8&ll=-32.624629,115.868511&spn=0.064337,0.1157&z=13&iwloc=addr&om=1

There are regulations governing dangerous dogs, too — I presume this is also the case in the Irish Republic.

Daniel

19th July 2007, 22:24

There are regulations governing dangerous dogs, too — I presume this is also the case in the Irish Republic.
Is that not what we're discussing :mark:

BDunnell

19th July 2007, 22:29

Is that not what we're discussing :mark:

I meant existing legislation, which, if enforced properly, ought to work. The trouble is when it becomes impossible to enforce something, which is when measures such as this start being taken. Understandable, but possibly a bit too sweeping.

Hazell B

19th July 2007, 22:50

.... other less aggressive breeds like Border Collies and Retrievers that don't 'belong' in a town environment.

The former is one of the breeds I would like to see banned as a pet full stop, the latter is fine when bred from pet stock rather than working parents. Border collies are a menace as bored, miserable pets the country wide. They bark day and night, go pretty much insane when eventually let loose and are utterly unhappy without long hard hours of toil. They should never be pets. I think they are also the most common 'non-serious' biters dog for dog in the UK according to the authority that sorts out injury stats.

However, Borders aren't on the list as they're not fashionable in inner city Dublin at a guess.

For the record my mother had a rescued Border cross as a pet and it was a damned pain whenever it came here to stay until she left. The second she went on her holidays it became a lovely, calm and obedient animal with just one single "NO!" bellowed at it's first bark. Far happier with us, living within pack boundaries and running about all day.
If I'd had to live next door to it while my mother handled the wretched beastie, I'd have probably killed it if Kipper didn't.

Malbec

19th July 2007, 22:51

No you're missing the point! Nearly all of the breeds listed have a history of seriously injuring people and in some cases killing people. Don't debate it. A good deal of these attacks are made by the dogs of people who are perfectly nice people and who treated their dog as best they could. Dogs are not tame animals as people seem to think and some of them are just not safe to own in the opinions of many people and the good people who are in control of the Dublin council.

I see, not only are you against my right to own the dog of my choice, you're against my right to debate issues regarding those dogs. Rather proves my point about the nanny state and the erosion of liberties doesn't it? ;)

Again you seem happy for the right of individual members of the public to make educated decisions to be usurped by members of a council, in this case Dublin city council..... are you starting to see the wider issue here?

A tiger is a cat. It comes from the same family :)

A tiger is a cat in the same sense you are an orangutan. A tiger cannot mate with a domestic cat, it is not the same species. You've accused others of ignorance, perhaps you should study a little biology. All the subtypes of dog we're discussing here can interbreed, they are of the same species. See the difference?

You talk about dangerous activities? Are you talking about things I've done like paintballing, skydiving and spectating at motorsport events? All things which I chose to do. If the chute didn't open and I went splat MY CHOICE. If A paintball caught me in the throat and killed me MY CHOICE and if Carlos Sainz rolled over squashed me to death at a rally and then started singing "Stand by your man" by Tammy Wynette then it was MY CHOICE to be there.

How about the number of innocent people injured or killed each year due to the right of people to consume alcohol, or the right to have a car/motorbike, the right to smoke, the right to possess a knife or in some places a gun?

Hazell B

19th July 2007, 23:02

I see, not only are you against my right to own the dog of my choice, you're against my right to debate issues regarding those dogs. Rather proves my point about the nanny state and the erosion of liberties doesn't it? ;)

Without wishing to jump in on Daniel's points and answer them, I'm replying as I think you're making a good point. However, you already have some dogs you cannot choose to own in the UK legally, so where are you on owning a fighting dog? Against, I expect. You're also not allowed to own assorted American and EU breeds that have certain certificates for attack training as imported animals. Can't remember the laws, but I do know some trained animals are not and have never been allowed to enter the UK. Nor are you allowed a wolf x domestic dog, but they do get in as I met one once, nor assorted domestic x wild cats like Bengals.

How about the number of innocent people injured or killed each year due to the right of people to consume alcohol, or the right to have a car/motorbike, the right to smoke, the right to possess a knife or in some places a gun?

And every one you mention is strongly legislated against ;)

Malbec

19th July 2007, 23:15

Without wishing to jump in on Daniel's points and answer them, I'm replying as I think you're making a good point. However, you already have some dogs you cannot choose to own in the UK legally, so where are you on owning a fighting dog? Against, I expect. You're also not allowed to own assorted American and EU breeds that have certain certificates for attack training as imported animals. Can't remember the laws, but I do know some trained animals are not and have never been allowed to enter the UK. Nor are you allowed a wolf x domestic dog, but they do get in as I met one once, nor assorted domestic x wild cats like Bengals.

And every one you mention is strongly legislated against ;)

Actually I own a dog thats fully legal in the UK though I haven't checked against the list of proposed banned breeds in Dublin.

The problem is that the definition of fighting dog differs from where you're from. I know some Japanese people who were totally shocked when they heard that Akita's were viewed here as being fighting dogs as over there they have a totally different reputation and are seen as ideal family pets.

The Dublin list as you know goes far further than the current bans you mention.

Also regarding the activities I raised, none of them are banned (except for gun ownership in many countries) but are regulated, which is exactly what I've been proposing with the dogs on the list.

Eki

19th July 2007, 23:16

Listen. I'm not the one making stupid comments. I'm keeping the discussion on topic. If you're going to contribute to the discussion then great but if you're just going to make stupid posts like that one then you can't complain when someone calls you out for playing the fool.
Yes, you think you're the peak of evolution and the guardian of ultimate truth. I think you're just one step away from an orangutan, just like Dylan H said.

Malbec

19th July 2007, 23:18

I think you're just one step away from an orangutan, just like Dylan H said.

Thats not what I said.

My point is that the biological classification relationship between a tiger and a domestic cat is the same as that between Daniel and an orangutan.

Don't twist my words please.

Eki

19th July 2007, 23:36

Thats not what I said.

My point is that the biological classification relationship between a tiger and a domestic cat is the same as that between Daniel and an orangutan.

Don't twist my words please.
I know what you said. Domestic cat evolved from the same stock as a tiger. Who's to say Daniel won't eventually evolve into something else with different opinions?

Daniel

20th July 2007, 08:17

I see, not only are you against my right to own the dog of my choice, you're against my right to debate issues regarding those dogs. Rather proves my point about the nanny state and the erosion of liberties doesn't it? ;)

Again you seem happy for the right of individual members of the public to make educated decisions to be usurped by members of a council, in this case Dublin city council..... are you starting to see the wider issue here?

A tiger is a cat in the same sense you are an orangutan. A tiger cannot mate with a domestic cat, it is not the same species. You've accused others of ignorance, perhaps you should study a little biology. All the subtypes of dog we're discussing here can interbreed, they are of the same species. See the difference?

How about the number of innocent people injured or killed each year due to the right of people to consume alcohol, or the right to have a car/motorbike, the right to smoke, the right to possess a knife or in some places a gun?

The right to own a car is a necessity. If we didn't have cars a lot of us (Me included) wouldn't be able to have jobs due to where we live. Hopefully sometime next year we'll buy a puppy or two. But if there were laws against it (for a good reason of course) I would have no problem with not having a dog if it keeps people safe or is a hygiene risk.

You can't own guns here, if you're caught driving drunk you lose your licence, you can own a car but once a year it gets checked to see if it's safe to drive and you can't smoke in public buildings therefore the risk to others is minimised.

Show me a practical way in which dangerous breeds can be managed without causing undue stress to the dogs by muzzling them or having them caged all day and I'll support you to the ends of the earth :)

LotusElise

20th July 2007, 10:24

You can't own guns here

Yes you can. Not every kind of gun, and it has to be licensed, but guns are legal here.

Show me a practical way in which dangerous breeds can be managed without causing undue stress to the dogs by muzzling them or having them caged all day and I'll support you to the ends of the earth :)

Muzzling doesn't cause undue stress as long as the muzzle fits correctly and the dog is allowed to get used to it. I know what you mean about caged dogs, but bigger dogs are sometimes happier in a GOOD-SIZED, secure, garden pen rather than a house. Especially if they have another dog for company.

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 10:39

The right to own a car is a necessity. If we didn't have cars a lot of us (Me included) wouldn't be able to have jobs due to where we live. Hopefully sometime next year we'll buy a puppy or two. But if there were laws against it (for a good reason of course) I would have no problem with not having a dog if it keeps people safe or is a hygiene risk.

You can't own guns here, if you're caught driving drunk you lose your licence, you can own a car but once a year it gets checked to see if it's safe to drive and you can't smoke in public buildings therefore the risk to others is minimised.

Show me a practical way in which dangerous breeds can be managed without causing undue stress to the dogs by muzzling them or having them caged all day and I'll support you to the ends of the earth :)

Daniel

you seem a little confused or uninformed.

the right to own a car is a privilidge but not a necessity. it is a necessity to enjoy the amount of personal freedom that we currently enjoy (if you own a car that is) but is not necessary to survive just as owning a dog isn't, although some people would argue that it is.

we also allow guns in this country. some, such as air rifles are largly unlegislated whereas others like shotguns are controlled. some are banned from mainstream ownership but are still allowed in some circumstances.

if you're caught drink driving, the chances are that you will lose your licence unless there are exceptional mitigating reasons and not all cars are checked every year. you are also entitled to smoke in some public buildings.

so, as we see from your definitive black and white statements, there is still considerable areas of gray. this is some of the problem encountered by the dangerous dogs act that was a knee jerk reaction to a particular problem.

on the whole, dogs aren't dangerous if they are trained well but the problem is that some of the fighting breeds are attractive to the sort of people that encourage agression in the dogs. what should we do about these people or their dogs?

difficult one.

most dogs are capable of injuring people. OK, my old beagle might not be because she's shaped like a biscuit barrel and is myopicly challenged to say the least but a little jack russell can make a mess of a small child.

draconian legislation where animals are destroyed is not the answer because it does not account for the difference between a dangerous dog and a reckless owner. it just looks at a single breed of dog and eliminates it a bit like the Nazi's in the 2nd world war.

didn't work then and wont now.

responsible owners do muzzle dogs that are potential biters and after the dog gets used to it, it causes no discomfort. if you have a dog that is uncontrollable in the house, then you either train it or may have to consider putting it down for everyones safety. sometimes, that is the only answer.

so, it comes back to owner responsibility and if managed right, can be an effective solution. I hope you will now change your view as you mentioned.

Daniel

20th July 2007, 13:01

Yes you can. Not every kind of gun, and it has to be licensed, but guns are legal here.

Muzzling doesn't cause undue stress as long as the muzzle fits correctly and the dog is allowed to get used to it. I know what you mean about caged dogs, but bigger dogs are sometimes happier in a GOOD-SIZED, secure, garden pen rather than a house. Especially if they have another dog for company.

How many council properties have good sized yards fit for a large dog such as the ones described? :mark:

Yes I can get an air rifle if I like but how the heck do I kill someone with it? The laws have been made specifically to stop people from getting killed.

Muzzling dogs IS fine when they're out on a lead but dogs spend perhaps 1 hour a day on a lead if the owner walks them? The issue then is dogs escaping and attacking someone or dogs attacking their owner or a child in the house. You simply cannot humanely muzzle dogs 24/7. It's not how they were meant to live.

Brown, Jon Brow

20th July 2007, 13:09

Yes I can get an air rifle if I like but how the heck do I kill someone with it?

.

Put it in someones ear and pull the trigger?? :confused:

Daniel

20th July 2007, 13:09

Daniel

you seem a little confused or uninformed.

the right to own a car is a privilidge but not a necessity. it is a necessity to enjoy the amount of personal freedom that we currently enjoy (if you own a car that is) but is not necessary to survive just as owning a dog isn't, although some people would argue that it is.

we also allow guns in this country. some, such as air rifles are largly unlegislated whereas others like shotguns are controlled. some are banned from mainstream ownership but are still allowed in some circumstances.

if you're caught drink driving, the chances are that you will lose your licence unless there are exceptional mitigating reasons and not all cars are checked every year. you are also entitled to smoke in some public buildings.

so, as we see from your definitive black and white statements, there is still considerable areas of gray. this is some of the problem encountered by the dangerous dogs act that was a knee jerk reaction to a particular problem.

on the whole, dogs aren't dangerous if they are trained well but the problem is that some of the fighting breeds are attractive to the sort of people that encourage agression in the dogs. what should we do about these people or their dogs?

difficult one.

most dogs are capable of injuring people. OK, my old beagle might not be because she's shaped like a biscuit barrel and is myopicly challenged to say the least but a little jack russell can make a mess of a small child.

draconian legislation where animals are destroyed is not the answer because it does not account for the difference between a dangerous dog and a reckless owner. it just looks at a single breed of dog and eliminates it a bit like the Nazi's in the 2nd world war.

didn't work then and wont now.

responsible owners do muzzle dogs that are potential biters and after the dog gets used to it, it causes no discomfort. if you have a dog that is uncontrollable in the house, then you either train it or may have to consider putting it down for everyones safety. sometimes, that is the only answer.

so, it comes back to owner responsibility and if managed right, can be an effective solution. I hope you will now change your view as you mentioned.

You refer to responsible owners. How does one pick out a responsible owner from an irresponsible owner? You're giving people responsibility. I don't mind if you give people the right to own cheese graters or TV remotes because neither of those things is a danger to myself or anyone else. But this whole "responsible owners" is a rather retroactive way of dealing with a problem that need not exist.

A car to me is a necessity. If I don't earn money I can't afford food and if I can't buy food then I die because I'm not Ray Mears. I NEED a car. Show me a person in a council flat who NEEDS to own a large and dangerous animal?

As far as the law states all public buildings in the UK should now be smoke free. Yes there may be some exceptions but by and large you can't smoke in a public building.

There may be grey areas there may be blah blah blah. But show me a reason why a person NEEDS to own one of these dogs and I'll agree with you.

Daniel

20th July 2007, 13:10

Put it in someones ear and pull the trigger?? :confused:

If I did that to you would you stand still for me?

LotusElise

20th July 2007, 13:19

How many council properties have good sized yards fit for a large dog such as the ones described? :mark:

Point taken. I think the debate has expanded and become more general though, hasn't it?

Yes I can get an air rifle if I like but how the heck do I kill someone with it? The laws have been made specifically to stop people from getting killed.

You could also own a shotgun providing you applied for a licence from your local police station. You would also need a suitable, secure place to store the gun and the ammunition, but it's not that difficult to do that. Certain types of rifle are allowed too, following a strict police check and additional licence application, plus stricter storage rules and (I believe - might not be quite correct) a legitimate purpose for it, such as pest control or evidence of sporting use.

Re: escaping dogs - there is already legislation that covers this, presumably in Ireland too. A little more dog education wouldn't go amiss either - all that stuff I've said before about not approaching strange dogs. There are ways to be alert and protect yourself which aren't hard to learn.

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 13:34

You refer to responsible owners. How does one pick out a responsible owner from an irresponsible owner? You're giving people responsibility. I don't mind if you give people the right to own cheese graters or TV remotes because neither of those things is a danger to myself or anyone else. But this whole "responsible owners" is a rather retroactive way of dealing with a problem that need not exist.

A car to me is a necessity. If I don't earn money I can't afford food and if I can't buy food then I die because I'm not Ray Mears. I NEED a car. Show me a person in a council flat who NEEDS to own a large and dangerous animal?

As far as the law states all public buildings in the UK should now be smoke free. Yes there may be some exceptions but by and large you can't smoke in a public building.

There may be grey areas there may be blah blah blah. But show me a reason why a person NEEDS to own one of these dogs and I'll agree with you.

what sort of dog? how would you classify it?

a pure breed. 3/4 breed, 1/4 breed and who's to say whet breeds should be excluded and what is the criteria for a dangerous dog.

you want to be proactive so tell me what the measurement for a dangerous dog is? should it be breeds that have killed or maimed before because that would be every breed on the planet wouldn't it.

or perhaps it's just breeds that have previously killed? lets be reactive about it. one does wrong so kill them all.

sorry Daniel but it's not right and I think you know it. yes, we dont want chavs with a bull terrier on each tattooed arm, walking down the street with the dogs straining to attck the nearing moving object. its those people we need to stop having dogs (and preferably children) but not the dogs themselves. Staffs, if brought up in a family environment, with love and affection, are one of the most rewarding dogs out there that are loyal, happy, gentle and offer great benefit. In fact, I dont think I've ever seen one get aggressive but the other day, a Alsation tried to have a go at another dog in the park.

Staffs = dangerous. Alsation = sought by Police and RNIB for assistance dogs.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Brown, Jon Brow

20th July 2007, 13:36

If I did that to you would you stand still for me?

Is it wise for me to answer this question?

BDunnell

20th July 2007, 15:02

The right to own a car is a necessity.

The right to own a car is a necessity, because it's an example of a personal freedom — just as we need the right to have a roof over our heads, to have a television, to be able to go on holiday, to do almost everything we do that's legal — but actually owning one isn't. I think the difference ought to be pointed out. Surely, also, the right to own a dog is a necessity along the same lines, even if actually owning one isn't?

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 15:50

The right to own a car is a necessity, because it's an example of a personal freedom — just as we need the right to have a roof over our heads, to have a television, to be able to go on holiday, to do almost everything we do that's legal — but actually owning one isn't. I think the difference ought to be pointed out. Surely, also, the right to own a dog is a necessity along the same lines, even if actually owning one isn't?

very well put. it's an example of free choice.

some people think things like 4X4's should be banned, some people think Bull Terriers should be destroyed.

some people dont realise how intollerant views snip away at personal freedom. we need to accept diversity even if we dont agree with some of it to maintain the integrity of it.

Firstgear

20th July 2007, 16:30

what sort of dog? how would you classify it?

a pure breed. 3/4 breed, 1/4 breed and who's to say whet breeds should be excluded and what is the criteria for a dangerous dog.

you want to be proactive so tell me what the measurement for a dangerous dog is? should it be breeds that have killed or maimed before because that would be every breed on the planet wouldn't it.

or perhaps it's just breeds that have previously killed? lets be reactive about it. one does wrong so kill them all.

sorry Daniel but it's not right and I think you know it. yes, we dont want chavs with a bull terrier on each tattooed arm, walking down the street with the dogs straining to attck the nearing moving object. its those people we need to stop having dogs (and preferably children) but not the dogs themselves. Staffs, if brought up in a family environment, with love and affection, are one of the most rewarding dogs out there that are loyal, happy, gentle and offer great benefit. In fact, I dont think I've ever seen one get aggressive but the other day, a Alsation tried to have a go at another dog in the park.

Staffs = dangerous. Alsation = sought by Police and RNIB for assistance dogs.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

What sort of dog , you ask? Well, the ones with a history of attacking & injuring. And, no, you don't go after every breed that has ever killed or maimed. There are always going to be exceptions. So maybe you ban all the breeds that make up 90 or 95% of all attacks. If you did this, you'd probably come up with a list very similar to the one on page 1 of this thread.

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 16:45

What sort of dog , you ask? Well, the ones with a history of attacking & injuring. And, no, you don't go after every breed that has ever killed or maimed. There are always going to be exceptions. So maybe you ban all the breeds that make up 90 or 95% of all attacks. If you did this, you'd probably come up with a list very similar to the one on page 1 of this thread.

I appreciate that some dogs are more likely to be aggressive and think we should phase these dogs out but the recent case in the UK where a little girl was killed by a Pit Bull shows the real problem.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1500&id=11882007

this dog was one year old and had already attached other people and dogs. If a responsible person was going to train this pet right and muzzle it correctly, so be it, but it was obvious they weren't. This dog should never have been in this persons posession.

thats what I think needs to change. The ability for idiots to have any old dog they want because it makes them look hard.

BDunnell

20th July 2007, 17:27

I appreciate that some dogs are more likely to be aggressive and think we should phase these dogs out but the recent case in the UK where a little girl was killed by a Pit Bull shows the real problem.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1500&id=11882007

this dog was one year old and had already attached other people and dogs. If a responsible person was going to train this pet right and muzzle it correctly, so be it, but it was obvious they weren't. This dog should never have been in this persons posession.

thats what I think needs to change. The ability for idiots to have any old dog they want because it makes them look hard.

I agree totally, but how? This is the crux of the problem.

Firstgear

20th July 2007, 18:01

By the time that the 'idiot' has shown him/herself to be an idiot, it's already too late and you've got another statistic.

Hazell B

20th July 2007, 19:05

yes, we dont want chavs with a bull terrier on each tattooed arm, walking down the street with the dogs straining to attck the nearing moving object. its those people we need to stop having dogs (and preferably children) but not the dogs themselves.

You've just said exactly what my best guess was the council in Dublin said. See, you agree with them, after all :)

Again, nobody has pointed out yet another obvious side to this whole issue. Those in council homes can ask for an exchange to another home should they wish to keep their dog. In the new home the rules wouldn't affect them, as this called for ban is limited to certain areas only.

BDunnell

20th July 2007, 21:08

Again, nobody has pointed out yet another obvious side to this whole issue. Those in council homes can ask for an exchange to another home should they wish to keep their dog. In the new home the rules wouldn't affect them, as this called for ban is limited to certain areas only.

I bet that isn't especially easy, if there is anything approaching the same pressure on council housing stock in Ireland as there is in the UK.

tinchote

20th July 2007, 22:02

very well put. it's an example of free choice.

some people think things like 4X4's should be banned, some people think Bull Terriers should be destroyed.

some people dont realise how intollerant views snip away at personal freedom. we need to accept diversity even if we dont agree with some of it to maintain the integrity of it.

Some people think all drugs should be legal, some people think machine guns should be legal, some people think there is nothing wrong with having a tiger as a pet, etc., etc. You could go on all day, and use your arguments to show that nothing should be banned.

The thing is, there are no real "objective reasons" behind the laws (at least most of them). They are just what the majority (or the group on power, but that's another issue) wants.

BDunnell

21st July 2007, 00:45

Some people think all drugs should be legal, some people think machine guns should be legal, some people think there is nothing wrong with having a tiger as a pet, etc., etc. You could go on all day, and use your arguments to show that nothing should be banned.

This is true. This fascinating discussion on a really very minor topic shows that one person's vital civil liberty is another person's appalling threat to our safety.

Normally, I tend to be one of those people who does not feel that how I live my life is unduly threatened by any restrictions, and that there are very good reasons for some of the restrictions that are put in place. However, so powerful are some of the arguments about this dog ban that it's made me think more about how far it's practical or desirable to go in some cases.

tinchote

21st July 2007, 05:38

This is true. This fascinating discussion on a really very minor topic shows that one person's vital civil liberty is another person's appalling threat to our safety.

Normally, I tend to be one of those people who does not feel that how I live my life is unduly threatened by any restrictions, and that there are very good reasons for some of the restrictions that are put in place. However, so powerful are some of the arguments about this dog ban that it's made me think more about how far it's practical or desirable to go in some cases.

Indeed this is a very interesting topic. The western societies praise liberty as one of its main components, yet the only way a society can work is by some kind of "social contract', where people are precisely giving away some liberty in exchange for harmony. When everybody is just concentrated in getting whatever pleases with no restrictions, you have anarchy and chaos: having grown up in Argentina, I know a lot about that ;) :p :

BDunnell

21st July 2007, 21:58

Indeed this is a very interesting topic. The western societies praise liberty as one of its main components, yet the only way a society can work is by some kind of "social contract', where people are precisely giving away some liberty in exchange for harmony. When everybody is just concentrated in getting whatever pleases with no restrictions, you have anarchy and chaos: having grown up in Argentina, I know a lot about that ;) :p :

Very well put indeed.

Hondo

22nd July 2007, 02:11

This is true. This fascinating discussion on a really very minor topic shows that one person's vital civil liberty is another person's appalling threat to our safety.

Normally, I tend to be one of those people who does not feel that how I live my life is unduly threatened by any restrictions, and that there are very good reasons for some of the restrictions that are put in place. However, so powerful are some of the arguments about this dog ban that it's made me think more about how far it's practical or desirable to go in some cases.

You know it's just possible that if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me and Sweetie the Wonder Dog, on our terms, in my neighborhood, amongst my firearms and energy wasting toys for one year, it is entirely possible at the end of that year you would be a more confident, self-reliant individual with fewer fears and a passion for independence and personal liberty. You'd be a welcome guest.

BDunnell

22nd July 2007, 14:59

You know it's just possible that if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me and Sweetie the Wonder Dog, on our terms, in my neighborhood, amongst my firearms and energy wasting toys for one year, it is entirely possible at the end of that year you would be a more confident, self-reliant individual with fewer fears and a passion for independence and personal liberty. You'd be a welcome guest.

What gives you the impression that I in any way lack confidence and have fears? I've only mentioned one fear — that of dogs, which is well-founded.

Daniel

22nd July 2007, 15:29

You know it's just possible that if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me and Sweetie the Wonder Dog, on our terms, in my neighborhood, amongst my firearms and energy wasting toys for one year, it is entirely possible at the end of that year you would be a more confident, self-reliant individual with fewer fears and a passion for independence and personal liberty. You'd be a welcome guest.
I don't think so. I hate spiders and even though I know none of the spiders in this country can hurt me I still don't like them.

tinchote

22nd July 2007, 19:39

You know it's just possible that if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me and Sweetie the Wonder Dog, on our terms, in my neighborhood, amongst my firearms and energy wasting toys for one year, it is entirely possible at the end of that year you would be a more confident, self-reliant individual with fewer fears and a passion for independence and personal liberty. You'd be a welcome guest.

It's really hard for me to understand your position. You think nothing should be banned? Or only the things you don't like?

Brown, Jon Brow

22nd July 2007, 19:47

You know it's just possible that if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me and Sweetie the Wonder Dog, on our terms, in my neighborhood, amongst my firearms and energy wasting toys for one year, it is entirely possible at the end of that year you would be a more confident, self-reliant individual with fewer fears and a passion for independence and personal liberty. You'd be a welcome guest.

I don't think that BDunnell is someone who lacks confidence :confused: #

if by some stroke of misfortune you were forced to live with me

:\

Eki

23rd July 2007, 19:17

To improve rep of dogs:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290312,00.html

Hero Chihuahua Saves Toddler From Rattlesnake

Sunday, July 22, 2007

MASONVILLE, Colo. — Zoey is a Chihuahua, but when a rattlesnake lunged at her owners' 1-year-old grandson, she was a real bulldog.

Booker West was splashing his hands in a birdbath in his grandparents' northern Colorado back yard when the snake slithered up to the toddler, rattled and struck. Five-pound Zoey jumped in the way and took the bites.

"She got in between Booker and the snake, and that's when I heard her yipe," said Monty Long, the boy's grandfather.

The dog required treatment and for a time it appeared she might not survive. Now she prances about.

"These little bitty dogs, they just don't really get credit," Booker's grandma Denise Long told the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald.

Hondo

24th July 2007, 18:45

It's really hard for me to understand your position. You think nothing should be banned? Or only the things you don't like?

Tin, nice to see you around again, I hope your daughters are doing well. I have replied to you once, however, this software in it's infinite wisdom, took it upon itself to log me off and my reply disappeared.

I can tell you that I have never, ever seriously called for anything to be banned and I doubt I would. These "bans" are generally weak, knee-jerk reactions that politicians use as "feel good solutions" to pacify their weaker-minded constituants into believing action has been taken to stop the activity in question. These bans are usually aimed at things, substances, animals, or all three that, by themselves, harm nobody. Human misuse or abuse of these things is what causes harm and damage. By and large, there are already laws on the books that deal with the human misuse or lack of responsibility in these areas. Enforce the law against the person, not the object. There are people out there that have and use these same things responsibly and all you have done with your ban is to stomp another liberty into the dirt. You may not care, but they do. You haven't stopped the outlaw and the irresponsible, they didn't care about your laws and damn sure don't care about your ban. If they respected you, your rights, or the law in the first place, then the events leading to the outcry for the ban wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

As far as the dog list goes, how many dogs of all those breeds are there, and how many of that number don't attack and kill people? Do some people make poor choices when it comes to pets? Yes they do. How about just banning stupid people? When I was attacked by that dog in my youth, the neighborhood had a leash law on the books. It was ignored both before the attack and afterwards. The majority of neighborhood dogs enjoyed joint ownership with all the kids in the neighborhood, especially those kids that were not allowed to have their own dog. By and large, we knew who the bad dogs were and stayed away from them on the few occassions they got loose. I never had any fear of dogs before or after the attack and love dogs, especially large breeds, to this day. I'll be damned if I'm going to live my life cowering in fear over an isolated incident. Freedom and liberty carries some risk. If you are unwilling to accept that, then go live in a prison. Except for the occasional lapse, you'll have a nice, controlled environment to live in, a job, 3 meals a day, medical and dental care, free rent, and all the bans you could possibly want. Of course, just like on the outside, you're always going to have those anti-social few that want to stick their homade knife in you, beat you up, or make you their new wife but if you scream loud enough, sooner or later a guard will show up and put things right again.

Look at this forum. We know this to be a clean joint and the mods do a good job of keeping a lid on things. However, the mods are not always here and sometimes something a bit too profane gets put up here or a link to a porn site gets let loose. When discovered, the mods kill it and ban the poster. There are those that would argue that that is not good enough and if even one child is at risk of being exposed to something inappropriate, the entire forum should be banned. I think you and I would agree about the foolishness of that action. We all know there are governments and groups that fume about the freedoms we have now on the internet and they want them censored and stopped. Beware of anyone that seeks to prevent the free exchange of ideas.

Maybe it's more of a culture thing. The place I work was taken over about a year and a half ago by a Swedish-Swiss company. Most of the first managers brought on site were from New Zealand or Finland. Imagine what went through their minds when they realized they were now surrounded by a 230 person workforce, dressed largely as trees and shrubberies, carrying flick open knives clipped to their pockets with blades up 6 inches long, while out in the parking lot most every vehicle contained a pistol or a shotgun, and a 6 pack of beer on ice for quitting time. These guys, especially the Finns and the Finns that followed were very cool and accepted that, regardless of their rules, this was our culture and let things be. In time, all the Finns were presented with flick open knives and instructed in their use. They carry them proudly and it's not unusual to see one whip out his knife, cut a 1" rope with one whack, close the knife, and return the knife to his pocket using just one hand and moving about as fast as you can blink. To their great amazment, there are no fights, no shootings, and no drinking on the job and a motivated workforce. Coming in and setting up and enforcing a ban would only serve to punish 230 people that had done nothing wrong. Why? There will probably be some that read this and feel compelled to write that they are glad they don't work there, well, believe me, we're glad you don't work here either.

Hazell B

24th July 2007, 19:27

These bans are usually aimed at things, substances, animals, or all three that, by themselves, harm nobody. Human misuse or abuse of these things is what causes harm and damage. By and large, there are already laws on the books that deal with the human misuse or lack of responsibility in these areas. Enforce the law against the person, not the object.

Very good post :up:

However, the laws in the UK are that all dogs must be either ID chipped or wear a collar and tag with the owner's address on it. You'd think the owners would respond and have the chip put in (it's about £10 and lasts for life) or buy a tag (perhaps £3 at most), but no. They just cannot be bothered. I know of very few dogs that are chipped or tagged. Mine are, as is the cat, but even I've never gotten round to getting the horses done (another legal requirement).

So, what other way can the authority in Dublin manage it's problem? They can't trace the owners of stray, perhaps dangerous, dogs after car accidents, desruction and whatever else they've caused. Legally the authories have to provide a Dog Warden, but when his department has to pay £4,000 to have dogs sewn back together after they've met with a car's bumper it gets rather costly. I don't believe non-dog owners should have to pay for careless dog owners. The law is that all strays must be given veterinary care until their owners are found, but who's going to claim a dog when it comes with such a high vet bill? Not the average Chav, sadly.

Sorry, but all un-chipped or tagged dogs have to be sorted out and I don't think the average citizen should have to pay for that. Good dog owners can move house (the council will have offered that, considering they have changed the tennancy agreement it's legally binding to offer an alternative) and bad dog owners will just throw out Rover so the warden can sort the problem out once and for all.

Hazell B

24th July 2007, 19:30

What gives you the impression that I in any way lack confidence and have fears? I've only mentioned one fear — that of dogs, which is well-founded.

As you've asked, almost everything about you screams a person who wouldn't say boo to a goose face to face, yet is happy to put on an act via machines. Sorry, but you did ask ;)

Hondo

24th July 2007, 19:30

Come to think of it, my first run-in with a ban came about the time I was 12. Like a lot of kids back then, I built plastic model aircraft, ships and cars. One day, after a mile bicycle ride to the store, I deposited my selected model, a tube of glue, and a couple of jars of paint on the counter and began rooting in my pocket for my hard-earned lawn mowing money, looking forward to an evening of model making bliss. Imagine my surprise when the lady told me I couldn't buy the glue because of a new ban in effect to prevent kids from sniffing glue, thus stopping the drug problem. I had never heard of sniffing glue to get high prior to this and didn't care. Oddly enough, I could still buy the paint. The ban for the paint sniffers didn't come for another year or two. The people that ran the store were sorry, they knew most of the neighborhood kids that were into models and had done business with us for years, but their hands were tied on this one. I left with my model and paint, but furious about the sheer stupidity of this ban on glue. A neighbor was coming into the store and could tell something was wrong. He asked me and I told him about the ban. He told me to hold on, went in and came back out in a minute with a tube of glue for which he refused payment. I thanked him and went on home. From then on, I kept an eye on my modeling supplies and gave my mom money for glue before I ran out of the stuff. To this day, I doubt that ban detered any kid from sniffing glue. It probably detered a few kids from building models though. I would even bet it got some kids to try sniffing glue. After all, there must be something cool about it if adults don't want you to do it.

Hazell B

24th July 2007, 19:41

I hear you Fiero, but wonder how one kid sniffing glue would bother a whole housing estate - it doesn't run out in front of cars, bite anybody, crap in the street or rip open rubbish bags then howl until dawn ..... like an annoying loose dog can :p :

Hondo

24th July 2007, 19:51

Very good post :up:

However, the laws in the UK are that all dogs must be either ID chipped or wear a collar and tag with the owner's address on it. You'd think the owners would respond and have the chip put in (it's about £10 and lasts for life) or buy a tag (perhaps £3 at most), but no. They just cannot be bothered. I know of very few dogs that are chipped or tagged. Mine are, as is the cat, but even I've never gotten round to getting the horses done (another legal requirement).

Around here Sweetie is only required to wear her vet issued, numbered tag, that is proof she has had all her yearly required shots. She also wears two tags, at seperate places on her collar, that I had made with her name, my name, complete address and telephone number.

I just recently learned that "council" housing is government owned or subsidised housing provided by the government. If thats the case, then as far as I'm concerned the government can roll you over and have their way with you any way they want. Just like your parents, it's their house and they can make the rules in their house. You don't like it? Fine, move and go get your own house or apartment (flat). The biggest part of liberty and freedom is also having the liberty and freedom to pay your own way. If you rely on others, you play by their rules. I feel more sorry for the dogs than the people.

Hondo

24th July 2007, 20:04

What gives you the impression that I in any way lack confidence and have fears? I've only mentioned one fear — that of dogs, which is well-founded.

I think you consider yourself as something of a superior intellect and either are involved in politics or want to be. You frequently advocate governmental intercession as a means to solve everything.

People that want to rely upon government to solve all their problems and concerns are, quite frankly, lacking confidence in their own ability to deal with issues that frighten them.

Hazell B

24th July 2007, 20:05

I feel more sorry for the dogs than the people.

That's exactly why I want to see them taken out of housing estates and placed in decent, loving homes with people who've passed a basic home check by a charity such as the RSPCA.

Sorry we didn't explain the council house issue at all. It's simply that the council in that area is landlord to these dog owners, so have the right to say 'no dogs' just like a private landlord can, so long as they have good reason. Alternative houses will be offered to anyone unwilling to part with their animals - though I honestly think this issue is more about getting certain families to stop having certain dogs rather than stopping all owners having a pet.

Watching some animal show on TV last week, they had a dog warden who'd caught five dogs owned by one family 40 times in only 3 months. They lived near a very busy road, plus the bitches were pregnant. In the end they had to wait until the house was snatched from the family by the banks to seize the dogs and rehome them with good owners. That's because if you try and tighten ownership laws some people scream "Human Rights!" and we've ended up with watery, poor quality pet ownership laws and poor quality owners to match :mark:

Far better to tighten the laws and make all dogs carry a tag or chip and those not doing so are simply taken, chipped and rehomed. Stops a good deal of mindless breeding, too. Stop and search for dogs, if you like.

Hondo

24th July 2007, 20:48

That's exactly why I want to see them taken out of housing estates and placed in decent, loving homes with people who've passed a basic home check by a charity such as the RSPCA.

Sorry we didn't explain the council house issue at all. It's simply that the council in that area is landlord to these dog owners, so have the right to say 'no dogs' just like a private landlord can, so long as they have good reason. Alternative houses will be offered to anyone unwilling to part with their animals - though I honestly think this issue is more about getting certain families to stop having certain dogs rather than stopping all owners having a pet.

Watching some animal show on TV last week, they had a dog warden who'd caught five dogs owned by one family 40 times in only 3 months. They lived near a very busy road, plus the bitches were pregnant. In the end they had to wait until the house was snatched from the family by the banks to seize the dogs and rehome them with good owners. That's because if you try and tighten ownership laws some people scream "Human Rights!" and we've ended up with watery, poor quality pet ownership laws and poor quality owners to match :mark:

Why didn't the police snatch and lock up one of the owners? They could have done it here. You must properly provide for your animals, failing to do so can get you jailed and fined, whether it be a horse, a pit bull, or a poodle. Of course this is a somewhat rural setting so if your mutt isn't happy with you, chances are he'll just move in with a buddy down the street and his buddy's owner will just start setting an extra supper dish on the porch.

tinchote

24th July 2007, 21:45

Tin, nice to see you around again, I hope your daughters are doing well. I have replied to you once, however, this software in it's infinite wisdom, took it upon itself to log me off and my reply disappeared.

I can tell you that I have never, ever seriously called for anything to be banned and I doubt I would. These "bans" are generally weak, knee-jerk reactions that politicians use as "feel good solutions" to pacify their weaker-minded constituants into believing action has been taken to stop the activity in question. These bans are usually aimed at things, substances, animals, or all three that, by themselves, harm nobody. Human misuse or abuse of these things is what causes harm and damage. By and large, there are already laws on the books that deal with the human misuse or lack of responsibility in these areas. Enforce the law against the person, not the object. There are people out there that have and use these same things responsibly and all you have done with your ban is to stomp another liberty into the dirt. You may not care, but they do. You haven't stopped the outlaw and the irresponsible, they didn't care about your laws and damn sure don't care about your ban. If they respected you, your rights, or the law in the first place, then the events leading to the outcry for the ban wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

As far as the dog list goes, how many dogs of all those breeds are there, and how many of that number don't attack and kill people? Do some people make poor choices when it comes to pets? Yes they do. How about just banning stupid people? When I was attacked by that dog in my youth, the neighborhood had a leash law on the books. It was ignored both before the attack and afterwards. The majority of neighborhood dogs enjoyed joint ownership with all the kids in the neighborhood, especially those kids that were not allowed to have their own dog. By and large, we knew who the bad dogs were and stayed away from them on the few occassions they got loose. I never had any fear of dogs before or after the attack and love dogs, especially large breeds, to this day. I'll be damned if I'm going to live my life cowering in fear over an isolated incident. Freedom and liberty carries some risk. If you are unwilling to accept that, then go live in a prison. Except for the occasional lapse, you'll have a nice, controlled environment to live in, a job, 3 meals a day, medical and dental care, free rent, and all the bans you could possibly want. Of course, just like on the outside, you're always going to have those anti-social few that want to stick their homade knife in you, beat you up, or make you their new wife but if you scream loud enough, sooner or later a guard will show up and put things right again.

Look at this forum. We know this to be a clean joint and the mods do a good job of keeping a lid on things. However, the mods are not always here and sometimes something a bit too profane gets put up here or a link to a porn site gets let loose. When discovered, the mods kill it and ban the poster. There are those that would argue that that is not good enough and if even one child is at risk of being exposed to something inappropriate, the entire forum should be banned. I think you and I would agree about the foolishness of that action. We all know there are governments and groups that fume about the freedoms we have now on the internet and they want them censored and stopped. Beware of anyone that seeks to prevent the free exchange of ideas.

Maybe it's more of a culture thing. The place I work was taken over about a year and a half ago by a Swedish-Swiss company. Most of the first managers brought on site were from New Zealand or Finland. Imagine what went through their minds when they realized they were now surrounded by a 230 person workforce, dressed largely as trees and shrubberies, carrying flick open knives clipped to their pockets with blades up 6 inches long, while out in the parking lot most every vehicle contained a pistol or a shotgun, and a 6 pack of beer on ice for quitting time. These guys, especially the Finns and the Finns that followed were very cool and accepted that, regardless of their rules, this was our culture and let things be. In time, all the Finns were presented with flick open knives and instructed in their use. They carry them proudly and it's not unusual to see one whip out his knife, cut a 1" rope with one whack, close the knife, and return the knife to his pocket using just one hand and moving about as fast as you can blink. To their great amazment, there are no fights, no shootings, and no drinking on the job and a motivated workforce. Coming in and setting up and enforcing a ban would only serve to punish 230 people that had done nothing wrong. Why? There will probably be some that read this and feel compelled to write that they are glad they don't work there, well, believe me, we're glad you don't work here either.

My daughters are doing great, thanks :)

I see your point, although I still cannot share it. You mention things that are not banned, but in the US lots of things are banned, and there are a lot of things you cannot do even if it pleases you: you cannot avoid stopping at traffic lights, you cannot drive at 200mph in the highway, you cannot avoid paying your taxes, and the list could go forever. This is related with something that puzzles me - and many others, I guess - since a long time ago, and that is the concept of "freedom" in the US. People from your country will fill their mouth talking about "the land of the free" and things like that. Yet the perception from the outside is basically the opposite. Among the twenty-something countries I've had the luck to visit, the US is probably the one where I felt most oppressed. The way it appears to me, people there are happy with their "little freedoms" (the gun, the knife, etc.) and they don't seem to care about other freedoms which don't exist, in a country where the government has way too much intervention into individuals' life.

Now, going back to the point - and maybe I'm repeating myself - I think that it doesn't make any sense to talk about freedom in an absolute way. The only way a society can work is by people surrendering part of their freedom. It would be perfect if this is done in a voluntary way (and it is, in many cases), but no society purely based on "good will" has ever worked. Some restrictions "the law" have to be agreed among the people. Which restrictions, that call is for each society to make.