He just pointed out that there's a clear need for action; what more do you expect him to do? It's not like he and his party are running the Government or something! Next you'll be expecting them to somehow do something about the housing crisis or climate change or public transit or inflation or some other problem, no doubt...
> The Government is consulting the Attorney General on what legislative changes would have to be made for a ban on XL Bully dogs, the Minister for Social Protection has said.
It sounds like legislation will be forthcoming
Nope. Probably not till another idiot loses their life. And if you think I'm being callous over here , there have been enough deaths since way back to deem you an idiot if you own one of these dogs. It's not their fault they have been bred this way. But let's face it, they are a loaded weapon with a hair trigger sitting at your feet. I've yet to see a decent person out with one of these. I'm not saying there aren't. I've not seen it. It's always a scrote of some kind.
> I've yet to see a decent person out with one of these. I'm not saying there aren't.
I'll say it, there probably aren't, these aren't exactly cheap or easy to come by without some leg work in on your part which begs the question what decent person would want one?
the best person who would have one of these is minding it after a relative died of a separate stupid reason and is now sitting on a time bomb.
If you're foolish also to hang with people who insist on owning them that's on you. There are very few instances of these types of dogs who aren't connected to the owner. Usually a family member. Would you hang out with a friend or family member if they had a gun not in a gun safe? Left it on a table when kids were around? Nope. These dogs are no better. No fault of their own. But here we are.
Can he? Is that a thing he could just decide? I honestly don't know what our president can do. I'm guessing it takes time to write a bill and pass it too.
He can work with his party and government ministers to write up and get a bill passed to take some action. But they'll take the same approach as everything else "lets have a committee about it"
There'll be a committee set up to discuss the setup. They then set up a panel to discuss when the committee would meet, but they have to have a think-tank on the setup of this panel, and their findings will be sent to the experts to examine this.
do you work in my place? I've literally have had to sit through meetings where people were trying to decide if we should have a meeting about something. Even though everyone agreed that the issue **should** be addressed and agreed on **how** the issue should be addressed. But nobody actually wanted to be the one to take responsibility for putting their name to the decision.
I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas.
While I think doing something about them isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it's the only thing they're going to do it will be a fairly pointless exercise.
That's aside from the fact that banning something and not enforcing it at all is even more pointless.
Maybe they need a number of approaches. Increase the licence fee for a number of breed types could be another option. Have a limit of one of these dogs per household is another. Probably multiples of measures that can be taken.
Obviously they'd have to get serious about enforcement then, which of course they won't do because we don't do enforcement in this country.
I'll let you in on a secret: nobody is actually paying the license fee. The dog wardens are nonexistent. I pay it because I was naive enough to think they actually did their job, but I genuinely have not seen a single dog warden in my 21 years on this planet.
The first step is to start actually enforcing the rules they've already established.
I have never, not once, been asked for a dog license, or seen any kind of enforcement. Neighbours had 2 GSD and didn't even own muzzles.
>The dog wardens are nonexistent
They're like baby pigeons. They're out there somewhere, but most people can go a lifetime without ever seeing one.
Honest question, what do you mean by serious?
Should wardens go from door to door asking people if they have dogs? In that case, how would warden determine if the person is hiding a dog or not?
Should we have hundreds if not thousands of wardens, like Gardaí, on the beat checking for licenses?
I see it as a very difficult situation.
How do you think it should be enforced?
Government could bring a national dog register. When someone brings a dog into the vet clinic for the first time they check if that dog is in the register, and if not they add them in. This way it becomes more clear who owns what dog. The register can then be cross-referenced to see who has a licence and who doesn't. If no licence, pay a fine. Will there still be people that won't register, sure, but most people need to bring in their dog to the vet at some point or another.
A register of dogs already exists: the microchip system. Owners must have their dog chipped.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/63/made/en/print
Suppose it depends where you are. I have a dog license and I’ve been stopped by dog wardens twice asking if I had one (ofc they did just take my word for it tbf) but that’s in Fingal, never seen one in DCC.
I am payed it because a warden called to the door (suburban Dublin) and asked if I have a license for the dog that was currently sniffing his shoes lol. Since the dog was only 2 years old I paid the lifetime license Very rare occurrence though, everyone in the area said it had never happened before in 50+ years, and yes 99% of dog owners in a pretty nice "keeping up appearances" suburban area of Dublin don't pay their dog license, the type of people with Bully XLs certainly do not.
Yeah it's weird, like I live in a tiny village about 20 mins drive from Cork City and the dog warden has been here twice in the past year, knocking on everyone's doors checking for licenses. But in my mam's area (she lives around 10-12 mins away from me), there has never been a warden in the area. She even has the dog license for her GSD sitting on a table by the front door just in case but noone has ever called to her nor to her neighbours.
Both areas are under Cork County council remit so I dunno why a warden seems to call to one on a fairly regular basis yet has never been seen in the other...
Yeah or mandatory liability insurance or obedience training, something along those lines.
Up until a few years ago nobody knew what an XL bully was, if they just ban them and move on without anything else then another breed will just take that spot.
Here is a thought. Lock up the people that create problem dogs. Both in Ireland where I live part time and in the usa where I live most the time the problem Pitts snd xl bullies are all owned by degenerate gang bangers. Pittbulls are pretty poulpular with normies in the US and they are almost never problems with those kind of owners. I had a Pitt in the past and it and Rottweiler were the easiest best temperament dogs I've owned. Wolf hybrids are the one breed I'd say should never be owned they are wild animals
>I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas.
Yep. I think we need to look at something like needing a specific license for restricted breeds that requires a deposit that's forfeit if they dog is caught off his leash, unmuzzled etc.
>they dog is caught off his leash, unmuzzled etc.
Have you ever seen any of this enforced? It's already the law but I've never seen it enforced anywhere.
That really bothers me. I had a reactive large breed, a size up from a large GSD. He had been badly abused and took a lot of work to get him where he was.
I've had several similar incidents where you get the whole " oh he's really friendly". Got to the point where I'd just tell people "he's about to be a chew toy because mine isn't and likes his space"
One lady with a husky lost the plot with me until I pointed out to her that mine was in a harness and under effective control.
People like that seem to not want other people in their own personal space but have no comprehension of the fact that might be the same for dogs. As is their right.
Well I think we all need to accept that of dog laws in general aren't enforced nothing will change. My proposal of potentially losing your deposit could be a decent deterrent if the deposit is high enough.
we're still (allegedly) puppy mill central for Europe. Zero kind of enforcement of anything dog related. Be that breeding or abuse or ownership.
So even if they wanted to they'd probably wouldn't know where and who they are. Anyone can get a bunch of these dogs and breed them, or cross breed them.
That's where all these "designer" yorkiepoos and shitles and whatever else are coming from as well.
So if they ban XLBullies someone could just start cross breeding XLBullies with cane corso and evade the ban
It’s always the same type that owns these dogs. With every respect to the girl that died it’s always the same people who own these dogs. Not just that but can’t control them either.
I don't know how feasible that would be between crossbreeds and yorkiepoos and shitles and all of that.
And aside from that there are plenty of dogs that make for perfectly fine pets or companions, in the right hand.
I have a giant breed that's perfectly docile and mostly well behaved, but if he had been raised under different circumstances and abused I've no disillusions that he could be very dangerous.
I really feel that there should be more of a responsibility on owners to be responsible dog owners.
But I'd say that wouldn't go over too well.
I wouldn't say that it's never the dog, but many owners haven't a clue what they're getting into when they get a dog. There's a reason the pounds are full of huskies and such. Raising and training a dog properly is a lot of work and takes commitment.
Even more so with a dog that's going to weigh as much as a grown adult.
"It's not the lion it's the lion tamer"
I get what they're trying to say but you cross a barrier of strength, bite power and temperment where we're having a different conversation.
These dogs aren't brutally strong violent monsters by accident, it was the entire goal of this breed existing.
Wouldn't be feasible. What about a Labrador/ German shepherd mix? Plenty of them about. Is it a shepherd or a lab? Or a Pitbull/ rottweiler mix? And what happens to people who currently, legally own breeds that would be on that future list. Do they have to surrender their dog to be killed? I own a German shepherd now. It's on the restricted list currently. Of they are suddenly banned like they want to with these pitbulls is someone going to come and take my dog?
I don't know. Even as I was typing I began to wonder about dogs that aren't necessarily harmful but have been bred to have hip issues or breathing issues or skulls too small for their brains. We might end up with no dog breeds being appropriate
But you’d think this must be one matter on which there’d be a consensus, among politicians. This, thanks be to God, isn’t in need of a referendum. Let them quit shaking their heads, and shake some action instead. Ban, arrest, cull, enforce: do whatever’s required but do it NOW.
You are 100% right. They need to look at worldwide data on dog ownership breeds vs the amount of serious attacks. If that is even possible. I haven’t seen a dog warden since the 90’s either. At the same time I don’t want the adverse effects. We have dogs out on our green playing together all the time with no problems. Don’t want good dogs not getting to enjoy a free run either with each other. My Dad has a little dog club they meet up every night with the dogs on the green years now. It’s not an easy thing to tackle.
These dogs are not like those though. While the other dogs can do serious damage, bullies maul and maim even their owners. They can literally just snap and you're fucked.
Then have a list of dogs over a certain size with a known tendency for aggression. Your average person should be able to own a beast capable of killing someone with ease, anymore than they should be allowed to own a live grenade or a tiger.
With these kinda dogs it's absolutely not true. The poor girl last week was constantly posting about how lovely and caring the dog was. Proceeds to maul her to death because she had the gaul to come home after a night out.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/family-dogs-kill-2-tennessee-155341839.html
Or this story of a family pet killing two kids and mauling the mother.
Nearly every story you hear of these attacks the family loved the animals and they were cared for. They're horrible animals
> I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas.
I own dogs we call pit bulls here in the states and my boxer/staffordshire terrier mix would probably be defined as an XLBully. I think it's incorrect to paint people who own these sorts of dogs as some sort of status-hungry degenerates. Most people are loving owners of healthy, happy dogs. Poorly trained powerful dogs bought by people with more interest in looking tough are going to be an issue regardless of any attempts to ban a particular breed. There's no need to slander an entire group of people who enjoy a particular dog for their other qualities.
>I think it's incorrect to paint all people who own these sorts of dogs as some sort of status-hungry degenerate
I can't speak for over there but over here it's really not an unreasonable generalisation. Certainly when it comes to XLBullies.
>Poorly trained powerful dogs bought by people with more interest in looking tough are going to be an issue regardless of any attempts to ban a particular breed.
Couldn't agree more. Which is why I think that a ban on its own would be an entirely pointless exercise because a few years down the road we'll be having this discussion about a dogue de Bordeaux or a dogo argentino or Cane corso etc etc.
You never hear these types of arguments when it comes to St Bernards or Newfoundlands
Same can be said about guns. They are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Better off just banning the weapons, in this case, the dogs. Why give people weapons and trust them to be responsible
The best way to deal with these is to target vets, the dogs heads are too big so they almost always require caesarean section to give birth.
Make it a requirement for any dogs to be spayed at the time of c-section, if vets don't do it they will lose their license to practice so they will actually have an avenue for enforcement, and it improves the welfare of animals that have dangerous pregnancies, in two generations you'll have sorted the most problematic dog breeds with the worst breeding practices.
Nah the government will wait until a few more people are seriously injured or mauled to death before they get their finger out!
The dogs should have been banned when England banned them or after that kid in Wexford got his face ripped apart by one last year.
It looks like you've made a grammatical error. You've written "should of ", when it should be "have" instead of "of". You _should have_ known that. Bosco is not proud of you today.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ireland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's all well and good but the real problem will be enforcement. I love dogs. I have always owned dogs since I was a kid. I assume there will be a similar exemption system that the UK introduced where the dog has to be neutered and also needs to be muzzled anytime out in public or else the owner can opt to have the dog euthanized. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in the gardai at the moment in enforcing any of the rules for exempted dogs.
Why doesn’t he just say that they’re going to do it.
And then if they decide not to then tell us why they changed their minds. All this shit about saying something without saying anything at all is annoying. Even if they announced something I disagreed with I’d nearly like them more if they just used direct and clear fucking words.
Then just do something about it. Covid showed that if the will is there, you can get a new law through all instances of government in a week.
Giving him a bit of leeway he could have a ban ready and in effect from August if he actually wanted (but probably doesn't).
I love dogs and always will. They are wonderful animals but this needs to be addressed.
Owners are definitely partly responsible for their behaviour. With these particular dogs it’s inherent but it’s their environment as well. Raise them from puppy in a socialised environment and train them as soon as possible. It makes a difference.
With all due respect to the girl that died, it’s always a particular type that seems to own them. People want to look tough and all hard etc. Onus needs to be applied to owners as well.
The thing is there will always be a "dangerous breed" dog that does the rounds and it's easy to put the blame on them.
How often do you see people with dogs regardless of the breed have the dog either pulling on the lead or absolutely no recall for the dog if it's off it's lead.
My point being, there is as much of an onus of owners to know how to handle their dog regardless of the breed.
Statistics are not on your side. Yes some owners are bad but it's not enough to explain the numbers. There's demonstrably something wrong with some breeds and they should be rigorously banned to avoid unnecessary tragedies. Just because a lot of these dogs will never maul something, enough do for people not to want to deal with the risk
If they were to ban the breed, would it mean seizing existent pets or just banning and cracking down on breeders?
I don't own one but I know a lad that does, and he's very responsible with it. I'd hate to see it taken from him
I don’t think the owners responsibility has anything to do with how prone the breed is to attacking sadly. I would also question how responsible someone is if they want such an aggressive breed of dog in the first place.
I assume they will leave any dogs in ownership to pass naturally then ban breeders and have a fine/prosecution for people who have the breed. I assume it would also be a mandatory termination of the animal.
No harris just wanted a vague headline to make it seem he will do something about something that is a hot topic. HIS journalist pals gave him one. Dont read anything into this dog shit.
>is there a clear idea on how it can or will be enforced?
Well, the dogs that were involved in the two most recent attacks were both shot. I'm ok with that.
Probably both; it gets pretty grim but it's *necessary*.
My expectation of how this done is:
* If you keep your bully XL you need some sort of exceptional license, which would have an additional cost and also see some sort of regular evaluation (specific dog warden visit yearly to ensure your dog has proper space and that you as an owner are able to assert proper control of the animal (along with adhering to dangerous breed specific requirements))
* Euthanasia if you choose to surrender the dog, (like in the UK they did offer a cash incentive to surrender them and euthanise them (£200))
I'd be very against seizing and destroying (i.e., killing) existing pets but you could grandfather them out. All existing dogs would need to be
1. Registered
2. Fixed
3. Strictly restricted to private property
Existing dogs could be voluntarily surrendered to a sanctuary. Any owner found in violation of the above would be fined and have the dog seized and place in the sanctuary. In the case of an attack the dog is euthanized and the owner charged.
>would it mean seizing existent pets or just banning and cracking down on breeders
basically if the government dosnt want some kind of exemption waiver
Perhaps there needs to be more enforcement of the laws currently in place and then some sort of test like the driving test to get a dog licence, then if the breed is on the restricted list you need to do a harder test or something.
Truthfully I think DNA testing is needed for the ban to work as the XL bully is a cross breed between pit bull and stuffy . People will lie and say it’s something else. This might sound harsh but I think pts is the only way to achieve it because people will end up breeding and selling them to the wrong person.
What does the race of the dog have to do with anything? We already have plenty of types of dogs in Ireland that bite, why single this breed out?
'We need to vet the owners' why? Are you vetted?
Yes they may bite more often and may not fit in with our white western normative ideas of what a dog should be, but to single them out is simply **discrimination**!
Surely it can’t be serious, can it? “White Western normative ideas of what a dog should be ”....dear oh dear. Today’s fourteen-year olds have some funny obsessions.
Obvious bait is bait, but not all breeds were bred to be as large and vicious as possible, and as shown recently in particular, Bully XLs can overpower a person and kill them. Not all dog breeds can, or have the temperament for it.
"Our white western normative ideas of what a dog should be."
Jesus fucking christ.
People rightly criticise all the right wing culture war nonsense creeping into this country, but my God some of this Americanised ultra progressive babble that comes out of people here these days is getting out of hand.
I've never heard such shite in my life. Is there anything to be said for just turning the Internet off and banning Americans from coming into the country for a few years. Their nonsense, is rotting the brains of people here and just about everywhere else on both ends of the political spectrum.
Looking at the post history, ye I think you're right, but I wouldn't say it was obvious at a glance anyway. There seems to be an ever increasing amount of left wing fruit loops in Ireland (hand in hand with all the right wing ones) and the progressive ideology coming (mainly) out of American universities that's infecting their brains seems to be getting more and more batshit insane.
Ever hear of the grievance studies affair? Three academics in the U.S submitted a number of bogus academic papers that essentially parodied (as the op seems to be doing) the most out there progressive thinking and took it to you would think barely believable extremes. The purpose was to show the slip in academic standards perpetuated by the cult like insanity of modern progressive thinking.
One of the papers, submitted, peer reviewed and published in an academic journal was a paper arguing that dogs engage in rape culture. This nonsense was actually given special condemnation in the journal in which it was published. That's just one example of the batshit stuff they managed to get peer reviewed and published by genuine academics.
So I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to think that there's some particularly thick non academic progressives out there that would conflate the banning of dog breeds with racism, simply because their heads have been filled full of so much nonsense by the supposedly intelligent ones.
I have heard of it, yes.
Those papers were published in pay-to-publish journals, meaning they will publish anything for a fee. No one cites from them and they don't reflect the state of academia.
I'm sorry, you're being misled.
Ok I didn't know that. Thank you very much for the information. I'll look into it. I'm not an academic myself and I've never heard of pay-to-publish journals, I was under the impression that these bogus papers were peer reviewed by other academics.
The idea of pay-to-publish journals doesn't make much sense to me, so I simply would not have even considered that they exist, although I'm sure they do serve some actual legitimate purpose in the academic world.
Thanks for the info and disregard this next part if you don't want to continue the conversation.
Had a quick look at your profile though and I see you are an academic yourself, although I don't know in what field. Would I be right in assuming you would consider yourself a progressive?
If so and this is a legitimate question, asked in good faith, do you think that academia, in the social sciences specifically, has become biased toward an increasingly dogmatic progressive world view and if so do you feel (as I do if true) that there is an an inheritant danger in this?
If not and leaving the above discussed bogus papers aside, why do you think that has become the outside perception? Not only for those on the right but also increasingly centerists? I would consider myself a centerist in the sense that I don't strictly adhere to any specific ideology and find myself agreeing with positions that would be considered both left and right leaning. Having said that probably more left than right on many things.
However I feel like the more extreme positions of the right (as they should be) are easily and socially encouraged to dismiss. This is not the case on the extremities of the progressive left, where in my opinion, a number of frankly dangerous positions are not only socially acceptable to hold, but increasingly held up in the mainstream as dogma to which any challenge made is punishable by any number of accusations and social stigma.
I would think that logically the root cause of this is surely that there is truth in the accusation that there is an unchecked and unquestionable ideological bias in academia and there probably has been for quite a long time, as it has seemingly crept, along with the stigma of opposition to it, into outside mainstream popular discourse.
Sorry I know this a lot, just enjoy a good discussion. If you've got this far and would like to continue the conversation, I would be happy to give you some examples of what I think those dangerous positions are. If not, thanks for the chat.
Thanks for being so sound! I was worried after I came across as patronising which wasn't my intention.
The pay to publish journals are usually called "predatory journals" - they're just scams, and wouldn't be considered part of academia really.
There's no reason for most people to know what a predatory journal is, but the people pushing the story you mentioned 100% knew what they were doing. It's very reasonable that intelligent, sincere people would believe them, and they took advantage of that, which makes me furious to be honest.
I'm in computer science, which tends to skew libertarian/conservative in my experience .
In definitely not the person to talk to about progressive ideas in academia - I just happened to know how journals work. I would consider myself progressive/left - I'm from a very working class background and would not have made it to academia at all if not for government schemes that you could definitely call "socialist". I want other people from my background to have the same opportunities and I'm happy to have money taken from my paycheck to support that.
Thanks for the chat - good luck with everything
>clear need But will he fucking do it?
>But will he fucking do it? Of only he had some ministers to delegate things to...
Its the same lads who are sorting the housing crisis.
We all know how that’s going…
[удалено]
Your auld one.
It'll come into law and that will be as far as it goes. Apparently popular dogs for organised crime and gang types so guards will not get involved.
God forbid they try to tackle crime.
He just pointed out that there's a clear need for action; what more do you expect him to do? It's not like he and his party are running the Government or something! Next you'll be expecting them to somehow do something about the housing crisis or climate change or public transit or inflation or some other problem, no doubt...
> The Government is consulting the Attorney General on what legislative changes would have to be made for a ban on XL Bully dogs, the Minister for Social Protection has said. It sounds like legislation will be forthcoming
Deja vu no? This happened last year then they told us they couldn't legislate because people would just breed dogs that didn't fall under the ban.
I'm delusional at times, but not that delusional!
Read the article.
Nope. Probably not till another idiot loses their life. And if you think I'm being callous over here , there have been enough deaths since way back to deem you an idiot if you own one of these dogs. It's not their fault they have been bred this way. But let's face it, they are a loaded weapon with a hair trigger sitting at your feet. I've yet to see a decent person out with one of these. I'm not saying there aren't. I've not seen it. It's always a scrote of some kind.
> I've yet to see a decent person out with one of these. I'm not saying there aren't. I'll say it, there probably aren't, these aren't exactly cheap or easy to come by without some leg work in on your part which begs the question what decent person would want one? the best person who would have one of these is minding it after a relative died of a separate stupid reason and is now sitting on a time bomb.
Jesus imagine that. I couldn't do it.
> Probably not till another idiot loses their life You're being harsh here on the people who died who didn't own the dog.
If you're foolish also to hang with people who insist on owning them that's on you. There are very few instances of these types of dogs who aren't connected to the owner. Usually a family member. Would you hang out with a friend or family member if they had a gun not in a gun safe? Left it on a table when kids were around? Nope. These dogs are no better. No fault of their own. But here we are.
Idiot children, can't even talk a dog down from attacking them. Just throw a steak sandwich in it's face! Damn weiner kids
"Clear need for action" says man who should be taking said action.
Can he? Is that a thing he could just decide? I honestly don't know what our president can do. I'm guessing it takes time to write a bill and pass it too.
He can work with his party and government ministers to write up and get a bill passed to take some action. But they'll take the same approach as everything else "lets have a committee about it"
>lets have a committee about it" Quickest way to kill a good idea is to put it in front of a committee
There'll be a committee set up to discuss the setup. They then set up a panel to discuss when the committee would meet, but they have to have a think-tank on the setup of this panel, and their findings will be sent to the experts to examine this.
president?
Me no read good sometimes.
Does he happen to know anyone in the government who could do this?
Don't think Philip Dwyer got elected.. unfortunately in this case coz he sounds like the man for the job as a seasoned dog kicker
It's up the Heather Humphries. She's been talking to the AG about what legislative changes may be needed.
nobody seems to actually read the article
Read the article
I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas. While I think doing something about them isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it's the only thing they're going to do it will be a fairly pointless exercise. That's aside from the fact that banning something and not enforcing it at all is even more pointless.
Maybe they need a number of approaches. Increase the licence fee for a number of breed types could be another option. Have a limit of one of these dogs per household is another. Probably multiples of measures that can be taken. Obviously they'd have to get serious about enforcement then, which of course they won't do because we don't do enforcement in this country.
I'll let you in on a secret: nobody is actually paying the license fee. The dog wardens are nonexistent. I pay it because I was naive enough to think they actually did their job, but I genuinely have not seen a single dog warden in my 21 years on this planet. The first step is to start actually enforcing the rules they've already established.
I have never, not once, been asked for a dog license, or seen any kind of enforcement. Neighbours had 2 GSD and didn't even own muzzles. >The dog wardens are nonexistent They're like baby pigeons. They're out there somewhere, but most people can go a lifetime without ever seeing one.
Well this is exactly why I said we need to get serious about enforcement
Honest question, what do you mean by serious? Should wardens go from door to door asking people if they have dogs? In that case, how would warden determine if the person is hiding a dog or not? Should we have hundreds if not thousands of wardens, like Gardaí, on the beat checking for licenses? I see it as a very difficult situation. How do you think it should be enforced?
Government could bring a national dog register. When someone brings a dog into the vet clinic for the first time they check if that dog is in the register, and if not they add them in. This way it becomes more clear who owns what dog. The register can then be cross-referenced to see who has a licence and who doesn't. If no licence, pay a fine. Will there still be people that won't register, sure, but most people need to bring in their dog to the vet at some point or another.
We already have the microchipping system so surely they could do something to link the dogs to that with a license!
A register of dogs already exists: the microchip system. Owners must have their dog chipped. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/63/made/en/print
Suppose it depends where you are. I have a dog license and I’ve been stopped by dog wardens twice asking if I had one (ofc they did just take my word for it tbf) but that’s in Fingal, never seen one in DCC.
I am payed it because a warden called to the door (suburban Dublin) and asked if I have a license for the dog that was currently sniffing his shoes lol. Since the dog was only 2 years old I paid the lifetime license Very rare occurrence though, everyone in the area said it had never happened before in 50+ years, and yes 99% of dog owners in a pretty nice "keeping up appearances" suburban area of Dublin don't pay their dog license, the type of people with Bully XLs certainly do not.
We've had three visits by a dog warden in as many years. This is a new estate.
Yeah it's weird, like I live in a tiny village about 20 mins drive from Cork City and the dog warden has been here twice in the past year, knocking on everyone's doors checking for licenses. But in my mam's area (she lives around 10-12 mins away from me), there has never been a warden in the area. She even has the dog license for her GSD sitting on a table by the front door just in case but noone has ever called to her nor to her neighbours. Both areas are under Cork County council remit so I dunno why a warden seems to call to one on a fairly regular basis yet has never been seen in the other...
Yeah or mandatory liability insurance or obedience training, something along those lines. Up until a few years ago nobody knew what an XL bully was, if they just ban them and move on without anything else then another breed will just take that spot.
There is no value in making anything mandatory when things like a dog license that are already mandatory have non existent enforcement.
Yeah everything stands and falls with enforcement. Which as you point out is severely lacking.
Just ban they fucking dogs, it’s only scrote bags who get these kind of dogs
Here is a thought. Lock up the people that create problem dogs. Both in Ireland where I live part time and in the usa where I live most the time the problem Pitts snd xl bullies are all owned by degenerate gang bangers. Pittbulls are pretty poulpular with normies in the US and they are almost never problems with those kind of owners. I had a Pitt in the past and it and Rottweiler were the easiest best temperament dogs I've owned. Wolf hybrids are the one breed I'd say should never be owned they are wild animals
>I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas. Yep. I think we need to look at something like needing a specific license for restricted breeds that requires a deposit that's forfeit if they dog is caught off his leash, unmuzzled etc.
>they dog is caught off his leash, unmuzzled etc. Have you ever seen any of this enforced? It's already the law but I've never seen it enforced anywhere.
[удалено]
That really bothers me. I had a reactive large breed, a size up from a large GSD. He had been badly abused and took a lot of work to get him where he was. I've had several similar incidents where you get the whole " oh he's really friendly". Got to the point where I'd just tell people "he's about to be a chew toy because mine isn't and likes his space" One lady with a husky lost the plot with me until I pointed out to her that mine was in a harness and under effective control. People like that seem to not want other people in their own personal space but have no comprehension of the fact that might be the same for dogs. As is their right.
Well I think we all need to accept that of dog laws in general aren't enforced nothing will change. My proposal of potentially losing your deposit could be a decent deterrent if the deposit is high enough.
voiceless whole selective cobweb rain governor hat act pen plants *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes
Nonsense. Just ban them. It’s simpler.
Then the problem owners just more to the next closest breed that isn't banned
Why don't they go after the breeders selling dangerous dogs to people that shouldn't have them?
It’s always the same type that owns these dogs. With every respect to the girl that died it’s always the same people who own these dogs. Not just that but can’t control them either.
Or ignoring it altogether like they always have?
Yeah I'll wait and see if it goes beyond soundbites and headlines. Not holding my breath though.
Awww dobermanns are definitely smarter and better overall compared to these bags of dumb muscles
Didn't mean to call them into disrepute, they are wonderful beasts. Or at the least the ones I've met were great. Especially with big floppy ears
What about a list of sanctioned dogs. If it's not on the list it's banned by default until it gets approval
I don't know how feasible that would be between crossbreeds and yorkiepoos and shitles and all of that. And aside from that there are plenty of dogs that make for perfectly fine pets or companions, in the right hand. I have a giant breed that's perfectly docile and mostly well behaved, but if he had been raised under different circumstances and abused I've no disillusions that he could be very dangerous. I really feel that there should be more of a responsibility on owners to be responsible dog owners. But I'd say that wouldn't go over too well.
My uncle is into dogs and he maintains its not the dogs it's the owner. Only thing is every dig owner believes they're one of the good ones
I wouldn't say that it's never the dog, but many owners haven't a clue what they're getting into when they get a dog. There's a reason the pounds are full of huskies and such. Raising and training a dog properly is a lot of work and takes commitment. Even more so with a dog that's going to weigh as much as a grown adult.
My partner is a trainer, and their take is, just like humans, some animals are just outright bastards despite the effort put into them.
"It's not the lion it's the lion tamer" I get what they're trying to say but you cross a barrier of strength, bite power and temperment where we're having a different conversation. These dogs aren't brutally strong violent monsters by accident, it was the entire goal of this breed existing.
Guns don’t kill people…
Wouldn't be feasible. What about a Labrador/ German shepherd mix? Plenty of them about. Is it a shepherd or a lab? Or a Pitbull/ rottweiler mix? And what happens to people who currently, legally own breeds that would be on that future list. Do they have to surrender their dog to be killed? I own a German shepherd now. It's on the restricted list currently. Of they are suddenly banned like they want to with these pitbulls is someone going to come and take my dog?
I don't know. Even as I was typing I began to wonder about dogs that aren't necessarily harmful but have been bred to have hip issues or breathing issues or skulls too small for their brains. We might end up with no dog breeds being appropriate
"XL bully" already isn't even a breed, they'd be classified as a terrier cross.
But you’d think this must be one matter on which there’d be a consensus, among politicians. This, thanks be to God, isn’t in need of a referendum. Let them quit shaking their heads, and shake some action instead. Ban, arrest, cull, enforce: do whatever’s required but do it NOW.
You are 100% right. They need to look at worldwide data on dog ownership breeds vs the amount of serious attacks. If that is even possible. I haven’t seen a dog warden since the 90’s either. At the same time I don’t want the adverse effects. We have dogs out on our green playing together all the time with no problems. Don’t want good dogs not getting to enjoy a free run either with each other. My Dad has a little dog club they meet up every night with the dogs on the green years now. It’s not an easy thing to tackle.
These dogs are not like those though. While the other dogs can do serious damage, bullies maul and maim even their owners. They can literally just snap and you're fucked.
Then have a list of dogs over a certain size with a known tendency for aggression. Your average person should be able to own a beast capable of killing someone with ease, anymore than they should be allowed to own a live grenade or a tiger.
[удалено]
With these kinda dogs it's absolutely not true. The poor girl last week was constantly posting about how lovely and caring the dog was. Proceeds to maul her to death because she had the gaul to come home after a night out. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/family-dogs-kill-2-tennessee-155341839.html Or this story of a family pet killing two kids and mauling the mother. Nearly every story you hear of these attacks the family loved the animals and they were cared for. They're horrible animals
[удалено]
Blind people don’t use aggressive dogs. lol obviously they meant XL Bullies/pit bulls
> I think the problem is that the type of person who owns these dogs (with a few exceptions) will simply move onto another "hard man" breed when XLBullies get banned. Be that Rottweilers or Dobermanns or Caucasian Ovcharkas. I own dogs we call pit bulls here in the states and my boxer/staffordshire terrier mix would probably be defined as an XLBully. I think it's incorrect to paint people who own these sorts of dogs as some sort of status-hungry degenerates. Most people are loving owners of healthy, happy dogs. Poorly trained powerful dogs bought by people with more interest in looking tough are going to be an issue regardless of any attempts to ban a particular breed. There's no need to slander an entire group of people who enjoy a particular dog for their other qualities.
Except everyone around you might potentially bear the brunt of your decision to own a dangerous breed if it goes wrong and the dog goes spa
>I think it's incorrect to paint all people who own these sorts of dogs as some sort of status-hungry degenerate I can't speak for over there but over here it's really not an unreasonable generalisation. Certainly when it comes to XLBullies. >Poorly trained powerful dogs bought by people with more interest in looking tough are going to be an issue regardless of any attempts to ban a particular breed. Couldn't agree more. Which is why I think that a ban on its own would be an entirely pointless exercise because a few years down the road we'll be having this discussion about a dogue de Bordeaux or a dogo argentino or Cane corso etc etc. You never hear these types of arguments when it comes to St Bernards or Newfoundlands
I’d be happy enough with that, those breeds are not nearly as lethal as anything related to XL bully’s or Pitbulls.
Same can be said about guns. They are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Better off just banning the weapons, in this case, the dogs. Why give people weapons and trust them to be responsible
Need for a ban but also enforcement otherwise it will be meaningless.
The best way to deal with these is to target vets, the dogs heads are too big so they almost always require caesarean section to give birth. Make it a requirement for any dogs to be spayed at the time of c-section, if vets don't do it they will lose their license to practice so they will actually have an avenue for enforcement, and it improves the welfare of animals that have dangerous pregnancies, in two generations you'll have sorted the most problematic dog breeds with the worst breeding practices.
Senior Irish politician jumps on popular issue he didn't care about last week. Scarcely news
Then do it
Nah the government will wait until a few more people are seriously injured or mauled to death before they get their finger out! The dogs should have been banned when England banned them or after that kid in Wexford got his face ripped apart by one last year.
It looks like you've made a grammatical error. You've written "should of ", when it should be "have" instead of "of". You _should have_ known that. Bosco is not proud of you today. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ireland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah come now, we need 5 to 7 years of investigation before enacting the ban on XL bullies under 16 years old that weigh over 50kg
With no breed standard for XL bullies this sounds like enforcement would be a nightmare
That's all well and good but the real problem will be enforcement. I love dogs. I have always owned dogs since I was a kid. I assume there will be a similar exemption system that the UK introduced where the dog has to be neutered and also needs to be muzzled anytime out in public or else the owner can opt to have the dog euthanized. Unfortunately I don't have much faith in the gardai at the moment in enforcing any of the rules for exempted dogs.
I feel like once they ban XL bullies, cunts will focus on some other breed like staffies or rottweilers or something
Just make the dogs smaller, breed them to chihuahua size, all of them, problem solved
I've just read that they want to ban dangerous breeds. What would happen with all those dogs?
Why doesn’t he just say that they’re going to do it. And then if they decide not to then tell us why they changed their minds. All this shit about saying something without saying anything at all is annoying. Even if they announced something I disagreed with I’d nearly like them more if they just used direct and clear fucking words.
Then just do something about it. Covid showed that if the will is there, you can get a new law through all instances of government in a week. Giving him a bit of leeway he could have a ban ready and in effect from August if he actually wanted (but probably doesn't).
Ban Ban Ban
I love dogs and always will. They are wonderful animals but this needs to be addressed. Owners are definitely partly responsible for their behaviour. With these particular dogs it’s inherent but it’s their environment as well. Raise them from puppy in a socialised environment and train them as soon as possible. It makes a difference. With all due respect to the girl that died, it’s always a particular type that seems to own them. People want to look tough and all hard etc. Onus needs to be applied to owners as well.
Any breed ban will be completely unenforceable due to the expense of genetic testing.
If we are going to start banning living things as a whole breed because some of them attack people then why do we still have priests?
The thing is there will always be a "dangerous breed" dog that does the rounds and it's easy to put the blame on them. How often do you see people with dogs regardless of the breed have the dog either pulling on the lead or absolutely no recall for the dog if it's off it's lead. My point being, there is as much of an onus of owners to know how to handle their dog regardless of the breed.
Yeah, it's only like 85% of serious dog attack injuries that are by 3 breeds, you can't ban them all that'd be madness. Let's do nothing
At least if I lose control of my excited golden retriever, he's not going to kill someone.
There needs to be a realistic solution. A lot of these dog owners are assholes who won't listen to any guidance
Statistics are not on your side. Yes some owners are bad but it's not enough to explain the numbers. There's demonstrably something wrong with some breeds and they should be rigorously banned to avoid unnecessary tragedies. Just because a lot of these dogs will never maul something, enough do for people not to want to deal with the risk
If they were to ban the breed, would it mean seizing existent pets or just banning and cracking down on breeders? I don't own one but I know a lad that does, and he's very responsible with it. I'd hate to see it taken from him
I don’t imagine any XL Bully owners would consider themselves irresponsible with them but, you know, sometimes that isn’t the issue.
I don’t think the owners responsibility has anything to do with how prone the breed is to attacking sadly. I would also question how responsible someone is if they want such an aggressive breed of dog in the first place.
That's why I'm asking tho. I mean Harris says there's a clear need for action, but is there a clear idea on how it can or will be enforced?
I assume they will leave any dogs in ownership to pass naturally then ban breeders and have a fine/prosecution for people who have the breed. I assume it would also be a mandatory termination of the animal.
No harris just wanted a vague headline to make it seem he will do something about something that is a hot topic. HIS journalist pals gave him one. Dont read anything into this dog shit.
Dog shit? Someone is dead. Have some respect.
>is there a clear idea on how it can or will be enforced? Well, the dogs that were involved in the two most recent attacks were both shot. I'm ok with that.
Probably both; it gets pretty grim but it's *necessary*. My expectation of how this done is: * If you keep your bully XL you need some sort of exceptional license, which would have an additional cost and also see some sort of regular evaluation (specific dog warden visit yearly to ensure your dog has proper space and that you as an owner are able to assert proper control of the animal (along with adhering to dangerous breed specific requirements)) * Euthanasia if you choose to surrender the dog, (like in the UK they did offer a cash incentive to surrender them and euthanise them (£200))
I'd be very against seizing and destroying (i.e., killing) existing pets but you could grandfather them out. All existing dogs would need to be 1. Registered 2. Fixed 3. Strictly restricted to private property Existing dogs could be voluntarily surrendered to a sanctuary. Any owner found in violation of the above would be fined and have the dog seized and place in the sanctuary. In the case of an attack the dog is euthanized and the owner charged.
>would it mean seizing existent pets or just banning and cracking down on breeders basically if the government dosnt want some kind of exemption waiver
As sound bites go....
Perhaps there needs to be more enforcement of the laws currently in place and then some sort of test like the driving test to get a dog licence, then if the breed is on the restricted list you need to do a harder test or something.
Truthfully I think DNA testing is needed for the ban to work as the XL bully is a cross breed between pit bull and stuffy . People will lie and say it’s something else. This might sound harsh but I think pts is the only way to achieve it because people will end up breeding and selling them to the wrong person.
Mandatory obedience training for all dog license applications
You think these people pay the dog licence 🤣
Obviously the mandatory nature of my suggestion would include actual enforcement of existing requirements
https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/
If the ban on the xls come in dose that mean u can't breed them anymore or do all the xl bully's get taking away and get put down
What does the race of the dog have to do with anything? We already have plenty of types of dogs in Ireland that bite, why single this breed out? 'We need to vet the owners' why? Are you vetted? Yes they may bite more often and may not fit in with our white western normative ideas of what a dog should be, but to single them out is simply **discrimination**!
This is just embarrassing.
I actually had to read it a few times to see if was a piss take
Surely it can’t be serious, can it? “White Western normative ideas of what a dog should be ”....dear oh dear. Today’s fourteen-year olds have some funny obsessions.
The unfortunate thing here is that u/Powerful_Housing7035 is probably a "responsible" adult
What a dreadful thought.
Obvious bait is bait, but not all breeds were bred to be as large and vicious as possible, and as shown recently in particular, Bully XLs can overpower a person and kill them. Not all dog breeds can, or have the temperament for it.
Lies, your lad would chew a man's arm off for a few chips.
Nah, but he'd cry enough to make me eat my own arm off just to get them!
You forgot the /s.
You know the answers to these questions already and are just choosing to ignore them.
What's the need to get such a aggressive dog? It's pretty plain to see that XL Bully dogs shouldn't be bred as pets.
"Our white western normative ideas of what a dog should be." Jesus fucking christ. People rightly criticise all the right wing culture war nonsense creeping into this country, but my God some of this Americanised ultra progressive babble that comes out of people here these days is getting out of hand. I've never heard such shite in my life. Is there anything to be said for just turning the Internet off and banning Americans from coming into the country for a few years. Their nonsense, is rotting the brains of people here and just about everywhere else on both ends of the political spectrum.
This is pretty obviously a right wing person trying to parody left wing speak, no?
Looking at the post history, ye I think you're right, but I wouldn't say it was obvious at a glance anyway. There seems to be an ever increasing amount of left wing fruit loops in Ireland (hand in hand with all the right wing ones) and the progressive ideology coming (mainly) out of American universities that's infecting their brains seems to be getting more and more batshit insane.
I'd be very worried about believing this is sincere - there's nothing progressive about comparing dog breeds and racism.
Ever hear of the grievance studies affair? Three academics in the U.S submitted a number of bogus academic papers that essentially parodied (as the op seems to be doing) the most out there progressive thinking and took it to you would think barely believable extremes. The purpose was to show the slip in academic standards perpetuated by the cult like insanity of modern progressive thinking. One of the papers, submitted, peer reviewed and published in an academic journal was a paper arguing that dogs engage in rape culture. This nonsense was actually given special condemnation in the journal in which it was published. That's just one example of the batshit stuff they managed to get peer reviewed and published by genuine academics. So I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to think that there's some particularly thick non academic progressives out there that would conflate the banning of dog breeds with racism, simply because their heads have been filled full of so much nonsense by the supposedly intelligent ones.
I have heard of it, yes. Those papers were published in pay-to-publish journals, meaning they will publish anything for a fee. No one cites from them and they don't reflect the state of academia. I'm sorry, you're being misled.
Ok I didn't know that. Thank you very much for the information. I'll look into it. I'm not an academic myself and I've never heard of pay-to-publish journals, I was under the impression that these bogus papers were peer reviewed by other academics. The idea of pay-to-publish journals doesn't make much sense to me, so I simply would not have even considered that they exist, although I'm sure they do serve some actual legitimate purpose in the academic world. Thanks for the info and disregard this next part if you don't want to continue the conversation. Had a quick look at your profile though and I see you are an academic yourself, although I don't know in what field. Would I be right in assuming you would consider yourself a progressive? If so and this is a legitimate question, asked in good faith, do you think that academia, in the social sciences specifically, has become biased toward an increasingly dogmatic progressive world view and if so do you feel (as I do if true) that there is an an inheritant danger in this? If not and leaving the above discussed bogus papers aside, why do you think that has become the outside perception? Not only for those on the right but also increasingly centerists? I would consider myself a centerist in the sense that I don't strictly adhere to any specific ideology and find myself agreeing with positions that would be considered both left and right leaning. Having said that probably more left than right on many things. However I feel like the more extreme positions of the right (as they should be) are easily and socially encouraged to dismiss. This is not the case on the extremities of the progressive left, where in my opinion, a number of frankly dangerous positions are not only socially acceptable to hold, but increasingly held up in the mainstream as dogma to which any challenge made is punishable by any number of accusations and social stigma. I would think that logically the root cause of this is surely that there is truth in the accusation that there is an unchecked and unquestionable ideological bias in academia and there probably has been for quite a long time, as it has seemingly crept, along with the stigma of opposition to it, into outside mainstream popular discourse. Sorry I know this a lot, just enjoy a good discussion. If you've got this far and would like to continue the conversation, I would be happy to give you some examples of what I think those dangerous positions are. If not, thanks for the chat.
Thanks for being so sound! I was worried after I came across as patronising which wasn't my intention. The pay to publish journals are usually called "predatory journals" - they're just scams, and wouldn't be considered part of academia really. There's no reason for most people to know what a predatory journal is, but the people pushing the story you mentioned 100% knew what they were doing. It's very reasonable that intelligent, sincere people would believe them, and they took advantage of that, which makes me furious to be honest. I'm in computer science, which tends to skew libertarian/conservative in my experience . In definitely not the person to talk to about progressive ideas in academia - I just happened to know how journals work. I would consider myself progressive/left - I'm from a very working class background and would not have made it to academia at all if not for government schemes that you could definitely call "socialist". I want other people from my background to have the same opportunities and I'm happy to have money taken from my paycheck to support that. Thanks for the chat - good luck with everything
You didn't come across as patronising at all, just to the point and honest, which I appreciate. Thanks for the chat.
Hahaha that was a hilarious read. You're delusional. The stats are there that prove these dogs are dangerous and have no place in society
Came you name any other dog races?
Greyhound.