This makes my blood boil, it is by far the absolute stupidest law that many countries have and it is blatant discrimination at its best. Remember folks, if an animal control officer thinks your dog looks anything at all like I pit bull they can seize it and destroy it. The dog can be a super friendly dog (like the one in this article) but they will still do it. Makes me sick! http://www.examiner.com/article/judg...30d09a5ff8282e
So the dog isn't a pitbull or of the pitbull family? Seems harsh but it's a different country with their own laws and if you live in that country you have to obide by the laws no matter how ridiculous they may be. I don't pretend to know the exent of what their dangerous dog law covers to comment one way or the other.
So the dog isn't a pitbull or of the pitbull family? Seems harsh but it's a different country with their own laws and if you live in that country you have to obide by the laws no matter how ridiculous they may be. I don't pretend to know the exent of what their dangerous dog law covers to comment one way or the other.
We have the exact same thing here in Ontario. It went into effect in August 29,2005.
Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as:
A pit bull terrier
A Staffordshire bull terrier
An American Staffordshire terrier
An American pit bull terrier
A dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs.
It is the by law officers call, if he thinks your Pug looks like it may have pit bull in it they can legally seize it. It is then up to you to prove in court that the dog has no relation to a pit bull. The law is b.s., my oldest son grew up with a Staffordshire Terrier (which is not a pit bull) and it was the friendliest dog you could meet. It is the owners of dogs that make them vicious.
Last edited by dissentowner; 06-13-2012 at 10:53 AM.
This actually really ticks me off. Possibly the most ridiculous law that I've heard about in a while. I've met and spend a lot of time with Pitbulls and Staffordshires and they are absolutely wonderful dogs. Like dissentowner stated, it's the owners that make dogs vicious. You can make any dog a fighting dog if you treat it the way these "owners" treat their Pitbulls and Staffordshires.
Absolutely freakin' ridiculous. What happened to judging by actions? These judges should ask themselves, if this were a person that looked "dangerous" would they take the same type of stance? If we're going to eliminate dogs that look dangerous, why not eliminate people that look dangerous? Inevitably, dangerous people will have a much greater negative effect on society than a dog.
The Following User Says Thank You to LGA For This Useful Post:
I approve of the ban on the breed, but people who have owned these breeds before the law came into effect should not be subject to it. That's terrible to rip away somebody's dog when the dog hasn't done anything wrong.
Do we know if this lady owned the dog before the ban was passed? It wasn't apparent in the article.
That's pretty messed up for a developed country. I could see it happening in a country where they still believe in voodoo or magic, but Ireland has access to books and stuff.
there is a petition, not that it woould really make much difference. I don't get how they can ban a dog just because he looks like a pitbull and is not actually a pitbull.
That's pretty messed up for a developed country. I could see it happening in a country where they still believe in voodoo or magic, but Ireland has access to books and stuff.
My post was 100% on-topic. The OP wanted me to talk about other breeds and I declined out of respect for his thread. I hardly need to get s**t on for that.
My post was 100% on-topic. The OP wanted me to talk about other breeds and I declined out of respect for his thread. I hardly need to get s**t on for that.
You said you agreed with the ban, what is the logic and reasoning behind it?
If that's the case, it make sense that this dog, which is part Lab, is getting put down.
Not really because this dog never bit anybody. All breeds have dogs that will bite, I have been attacked by a friends Chihuahua, it is a nasty little thing but I am not calling for a ban on those. You can't judge a dogs temperment by its breed, it is innacurrate and wrong.
That's pretty messed up for a developed country. I could see it happening in a country where they still believe in voodoo or magic, but Ireland has access to books and stuff.
Isn't this the place where they have the Blasphemy Law? Guess it doesn't help if the books and stuff are about magic?
This actually really ticks me off. Possibly the most ridiculous law that I've heard about in a while. I've met and spend a lot of time with Pitbulls and Staffordshires and they are absolutely wonderful dogs. Like dissentowner stated, it's the owners that make dogs vicious. You can make any dog a fighting dog if you treat it the way these "owners" treat their Pitbulls and Staffordshires.
Absolutely freakin' ridiculous. What happened to judging by actions? These judges should ask themselves, if this were a person that looked "dangerous" would they take the same type of stance? If we're going to eliminate dogs that look dangerous, why not eliminate people that look dangerous? Inevitably, dangerous people will have a much greater negative effect on society than a dog.
People are not dogs, and dogs are not people.
The problem is that people forget that and then make incorrect conclusions.
That said, I agree that it's the people not the dog. And a dog isn't dangerous at all, up until the point that it is. All people, owners of dogs or not, need to keep that in mind at all times around dogs.
We have the exact same thing here in Ontario. It went into effect in August 29,2005.
Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as:
A pit bull terrier
A Staffordshire bull terrier
An American Staffordshire terrier
An American pit bull terrier
A dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs.
It is the by law officers call, if he thinks your Pug looks like it may have pit bull in it they can legally seize it. It is then up to you to prove in court that the dog has no relation to a pit bull. The law is b.s., my oldest son grew up with a Staffordshire Terrier (which is not a pit bull) and it was the friendliest dog you could meet. It is the owners of dogs that make them vicious.
Not that I disagree with this, but there are numerous statistics that show Pit Bulls are a very dangerous dog when it comes to animal/person attacks.
I only got halfway through that video but if the last half is the same as the first, it's a stupid rebuttal to people accusing those dogs of being dangerous. No facts at all and just claims that those any attacks by those dogs are all just lies in the newspapers.
Judges order Belfast dog put down.
