Dublin City Council today confirmed a list of ten breeds of dog which will be banned from its housing estates and flat complexes.

The ban on certain breeds or crosses of breeds follows ten reported dog attacks on people since the start of the year. Three of the ten people attacked were children.

The ban will be implemented through the Tenancy Agreement and will affect existing and future tenants.

Advertisement
In the first six months of the year 73 banned dogs were handed over by their owners and another 169 were picked up as strays, according to the council.

The ban has been in effect since 1 July and the following dogs are included:

*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

Please sign the petition below if you agree that this is not only cruel to innocent animals and good owners, but will not solve the problem of bad owners who do not discipline their dogs properly, or bring them up intentionally to be aggressive. It is these owners who need to be legislated against, not the innocent animals!

Citizens against dog ban petition

--
moto

A blanket ban on all pets in council properties would be different. But they are singling out specific breeds which they deem to be dangerous, with the only justification being that some people were attacked by members of that breed. They don't seem to have considered the upbringing of the animals in question.

--
moto

motorollin wrote:
And by the way, what do you think they council are going to do with the animals once they are handed in?

--
moto

Burn them on a big fecking bonfire hopefully. ;-)

It is easier to ensure the safety of others on these estates by banning the people who steal from or attack others than it it is to guarantee that council estate chav scum parents will train their children correctly.

See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?

--
moto

motorollin wrote:
It is easier to ensure the safety of others on these estates by banning the people who steal from or attack others than it it is to guarantee that council estate chav scum parents will train their children correctly.

See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?

Because animals are inferior to humans.

CannonFodder wrote:

Quote

motorollin wrote:
See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?

Because animals are inferior to humans.

Yeah, the way humans destroy each other needlessly and barbarically barely compares to the abhorrent acts which dogs carry out.

CannonFodder wrote:
Great, more dog sh!t on the pavement.

Excuse me? I would never allow my dog to fowl a public place. If it did so it would be strongly reprimanded and the offending substance would be removed and disposed of safely.

Besides, if an animal fowls the pavement, whose fault is it? The dog or the owner?

--
moto

Sadly, those breeds are more likely to be dangerous.  They are more likely to be purchased by owners for that reason.

Some such as the APBT are come under the Dangerous dogs act, so are banned throughout the UK anyway, which actually makes this Irish legislation more relaxed.

I'm a big fan of Alsatians and I know that they are one of the most intelligent, loving dogs you can find (In fact the reason why they aren't used more as guide dogs is because they suffer from separation anxiety and don't adjust well transferring from trainer to user).  But I also know that because of their size, they can be dangerous (particularly if they been abused / trained to be).

The vast majority of private tenancy agreements don't allow for any pets at all (which is why I don't currently have a dog), so again this isn't really anything that surprising.

CannonFodder wrote:
They are inferior because we are top of the food chain.  No other reason.

That argument makes no sense at all.

Uncharted wrote:
Sadly, those breeds are more likely to be dangerous. They are more likely to be purchased by owners for that reason.

That's not the dog's fault. The owners who fail to nurture dogs in to loving creatures should be banned from keeping animals. Banning everyone from keeping that breed, regardless of how well they might bring their dog up, is crazy.

Uncharted wrote:
The vast majority of private tenancy agreements don't allow for any pets at all

I know that, but as I said above a blanket ban on pets would be different. The fact is they have, quite unfairly in my opinion, selected breeds which they believe are innately violent, seemingly with no thought to the way in which the animal is brought up.

--
moto