Making it mandatory to muzzle dogs in public

I disagree strongly with BSL - well I would wouldn't I since I have what is commonly called a "devil dog" aka a rottie.

I take my dogs home to Dublin most Christmas' and the rottie is muzzled and on-lead every time he is out in public as they are one of the 11 restricted breeds under the Irish Control of Dogs Act 1998. There is even a legal maximum of how long the lead can be.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/animal_welfare_and_control/control_of_dogs.html

Now that is BSL at it's best! What it means (at least in South County Dublin) is that any other dog that is not listed can do exactly as it it likes - not a dangerous dog, see? Except, as we know that isn't the case because any dog no matter what size can do serious damage if they aren't trained and/or supervised. From what I can see, it hasn't reduced the number of dog attacks over all (as someone said, many happen at home or on private property) and the ones that happen in public places are still happening because despite the belief of Irish lawmakers, other breeds still have teeth, irresponsible owners and are let run riot by a minority...

I'm not anti muzzling and I'm the first to have a go at owners who consistently lack control of their dogs but demonising certain breeds is not effective and doesn't do anything to improve public safety - I wish that the authorities would get after the stupid owners who either don't bother training their dog or on the other hand, train their dog to be antisocial and an extension to a certain part of their anatomy.

Comes back to Deed not Breed once again.
 
cbmcts said:
I disagree strongly with BSL - well I would wouldn't I since I have what is commonly called a "devil dog" aka a rottie.

I take my dogs home to Dublin most Christmas' and the rottie is muzzled and on-lead every time he is out in public as they are one of the 11 restricted breeds under the Irish Control of Dogs Act 1998. There is even a legal maximum of how long the lead can be.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/animal_welfare_and_control/control_of_dogs.html

Now that is BSL at it's best! What it means (at least in South County Dublin) is that any other dog that is not listed can do exactly as it it likes - not a dangerous dog, see? Except, as we know that isn't the case because any dog no matter what size can do serious damage if they aren't trained and/or supervised. From what I can see, it hasn't reduced the number of dog attacks over all (as someone said, many happen at home or on private property) and the ones that happen in public places are still happening because despite the belief of Irish lawmakers, other breeds still have teeth, irresponsible owners and are let run riot by a minority...

I'm not anti muzzling and I'm the first to have a go at owners who consistently lack control of their dogs but demonising certain breeds is not effective and doesn't do anything to improve public safety - I wish that the authorities would get after the stupid owners who either don't bother training their dog or on the other hand, train their dog to be antisocial and an extension to a certain part of their anatomy.

Comes back to Deed not Breed once again.
Click to expand...

Well Im glad Im not in Ireland as my Dobes would have to be muzzled and Staffies,Ridgebacks,Akitas, Bull Mastiffs & German Shepherds would have to be as well. The daft thing is their crosses are as well ,by most rescue standards anything black & tan is either a Dobe cross or Rottie cross which goes to show how farcical the whole DDA is and how innocent dogs get caught up in this and are pts.
 
I agree in a way about dog licences. I remember mum buying one from the post office. But look at the way horse passports are policed and you just know it will be another farce. In principle it would be a fantastic idea but in practice I expect even more dogs dumped and ending up in rescue homes.

Muzzling in public. I dont particularly agree with it but if they make it law they have to for all dogs.
 
I haven't read all the replies and I have no experience with staffordshire bull terriers but I can tell you that I wouldn't trust my collie with a small child :eek:

If we are on a walk and I see small children up ahead I always call her back and put her on a lead - its simply not worth the risk. She hasn't been brought up with small children, she's never met them (except once at my NYE's party) and I have no options to get her used to them.

So should she be muzzled when out in public? Hell NO! we live in the sticks, we hardly ever meet anyone and I am amazed that not every child is taught by its parents not to approach a dog without asking :eek:

It is absolutely not possible to bring out a legislation to muzzle all dogs in public - can you imagine a pack of fox or stag hounds being muzzled, gun dogs, guide dogs, sheep dogs? Its a ridiculous scenario with too many loopholes.

None of my dogs wear collars either as all are exempt as being working dogs - I would never let a dog loose with a collar - far too dangerous in this area!
 
I used to have a little border/lakeland/jrt mix, Brian, who came from a rescue centre. When he became old his sight was fading and if someone reached down to him he wouldn't see them coming and sometimes snapped.

I used to take him with me to collect my little girl from school and while we waited outside, other parents would let their pre-school children come over to touch him. I was worried one of them would catch him unawares and he'd snap, so I decided to muzzle him.

The same parents would then glare at me for bringing him and pull their kiddies away because "the dog's nasty"! The point was, he COULD have been a risk unmuzzled (they never asked if it was ok for their kids to stroke him) but now he was muzzled there wasn't any risk, but they acted like now he was a danger!

Where's the logic in that?
 
CaveCanem said:
Well it doesn't really matter, does it, poor Lennox was muzzled every time he was out, as a precaution, and he is being PTS after almost 18 months of stagnation in a kennel block, despite never biting another dog or human being.
Click to expand...

Where did you see that, I have looked on his save Lennox website but couldn't see the information on there.
 
In my book dogs will be muzzled in public places the day that childrens' hands are tied behind their backs, and parents have their mouths forcibly zipped up to stop them saying "Of COURSE you can go and pat the lovely doggie!"

There is an assumption that dogs - and indeed horses - are all in the place they happen to be at the time so that the general public can come and maul them. I am delighted to introduce children, and adults, to my dogs and horses, but at my invitation.

A woman recently complained to me that she had called my horse over to the road gate, where "I stroked his nose and he bit me". I sked how she'd feel if I called her over to her garden gate and then poked my fingers at her nostrils?

It's a constant worry in any sort of crowd to have to watch who is assaulting my dogs. I think the post of the unknown child cradling the Jack Russell just says it all.
 
Luci07 said:
But.. what really REALLY shocked me was the amount of "mothers with children" on the board... who were stating that all dogs should be muzzled.. because they don't want their children bitten when the child goes upto the dog.

So no prizes for guessing but I did register and put my penniesworth on and was pretty strong in my choice of words. I pointed out that no parent or ANY individual should EVER routinely approach a strange dog without asking the owner. Appreciate its a different matter if said dog goes over (i.e owners responsiblility) but I was really taken aback that these women, routinely felt it was absolutely fine to let their children wander over to strange dogs.
Click to expand...
I agree- the amount f children who wander up to random dogs is shocking.
The very first thing I remember being smacked for (bloody hard BTW!) was running up to a strange Afghan Hound for a hug at about 3 :o

I always thought it basic manners AND an important safety issue that children were taught to ask permission being extending a hand to a dog.



Luci07 said:
It is something I feel strongly about. My first rescue staff was rehomed to me because I had no children. She was completely terrified of them (having been burnt and abused by the 7 - 10 year old brigade). Yet if I was out, and children would come over - I would tell the parents that my dog was scared and to keep their children away (said dog would be cowering behind me shaking) and it was laughable how the parents would just nod and carry on ignoring their children. We left one lunch party early as while my dog was tied next to me (happily), one of the children was actually trying to creep behind me to get to my dog, despite being told off (by me). Should also point out that child had not been expected at said party as I would not have brought my dog with me.

What are your experiences with parents and children? and their assumptions about your dogs?
Click to expand...

The anti child feeling on some parts of this forum disturb me.
Several posts just on this thread are quite nasty to children,and they are often refered to as some sort of alien species :crazy:
Children are NOT an enemy.
Children are NOT out to get you,your dog,your horse or to annoy you on purpose.
They are NOT born bad.

I find children reflect their parents pretty well, a rude child will have rude parents- the child learns how to interact from it's parents- yep,just like a dog is taught the ropes by it's owners/older dogs in the household.

It's funny how many posters will get up in arms about a set breed of dog being branded bad while they are perfectly happy to write of all the worlds children as just that!
s040.gif



ETA- from the mother of a 6yo who has NEVER just walked up to a strange dog, that will ALWAYS ask permission to stroke a dog ( normaly asking me first if he is allowed to ask ;) ) and that because he has been taught to be kind to them, can be trusted with ANY animal on the planet...for his part at least.....
 
The anti dog feeling on most other forums disturbs me. :p

Ok, so I'm being slightly flippant but for me children may as well be an alien species, I never had siblings or similar aged cousins, have none of my own and a large number of my encounters with them have been annoying and uncomfortable. Lots of times these have involved the dogs or horse and all I've come away with is the impression that a lot of parents have a breathtaking sense of entitlement (just like some dog owners, to be fair!).

I think the point was that in any scenario if a dog bit a child the dog would be blamed and quite probably put to sleep, even if the child happened to be whacking a strange dog over the head with a stick for lack of parental supervision.

The fact remains that most dog attacks happen by a known dog in the family home, muzzling wouldn't do a thing to prevent that.
 
I don't think anyone on this forum is anti children.
I, personally, am anti uncontrolled children or parents who allow or even encourage their charges to interfere with other people or their pets and I think a lot of people are with me on this.
BTW I do have a son, no longer a child.
 
All these problem dogs AND children started up when respect for "your elders and betters" went.Children calling teachers by their Christian names??Their parents also??
Teachers and parents are now legally prevented from instilling discipline,or even having the threat of disciplinary action to control.Kids of THREE being ASKED what they want to wear/eat,unbelievable is`nt it? Before too long it will be illegal and against equine "rights" to give it a thump for disobedience.
My Dad was only half joking about "children should be seen but not heard",it never did any harm..your opinion was not required until you were of an age to be considered to have one.
Oh Yes,I went to pat a Corgi,aged three,when told not to,it bit,I got a wallop and "serves you right" AND my mother apologised to the dog`s owner!
 
East Kent your right. displince has been taken away and kids just rule this country. Take the riots we suffered this August is a good point. Alot of the parents say they would get punished for punishing their child

When I was young if I was told not to do something and I did i would of got a smacked bum. It taught me a lesson
 
I have actually never had any child approach my dog uninvited to have a pat or a cuddle - hes an Alaskan Malamute and a big softie but his sheer size must command an approach and pet request because nobody, adult or child, has ever just wandered up to him and started patting him - the neighbourhood kids ask every single time - they never assume they can even though they do it all the time. My children would never be allowed to go near a dog they dont know, I would be absolutely distraught if they were hurt - I would have assumed most parents would be aware of the dangers of any dog, not just dangerous breeds, and would not allow their child to pet an unknown dog without first seeking the owners persmission - clearly from this thread, I am mistaken.

One of my earliest memories of me in my huge silver cross pram at the age of 2 attempting to reach down to a neighours dog and having my hand slapped away by my mother and firmly told not to touch the animal.
 
EAST KENT said:
All these problem dogs AND children started up when respect for "your elders and betters" went.Children calling teachers by their Christian names??Their parents also??
Teachers and parents are now legally prevented from instilling discipline,or even having the threat of disciplinary action to control.Kids of THREE being ASKED what they want to wear/eat,unbelievable is`nt it? Before too long it will be illegal and against equine "rights" to give it a thump for disobedience.
My Dad was only half joking about "children should be seen but not heard",it never did any harm..your opinion was not required until you were of an age to be considered to have one.
Oh Yes,I went to pat a Corgi,aged three,when told not to,it bit,I got a wallop and "serves you right" AND my mother apologised to the dog`s owner!
Click to expand...

My daughter was encouraged to have her own opinions from the start. She was involved in what she wore, ate etc although obviously overseen by myself and her dad to encourage wise choices.

"Legally prevented from instilling disipline"? Rubbish. Hitting (sorry, smacking, sounds nicer) children is known to NOT be a good way of disiplining for well-researched phsychological reasons. I didn't strike my child, neither did anyone else. She was disiplined in other ways, of course and was always a wonderfully well-behaved, polite and respectful child.

And now? She's 26, a hard-working, polite, kind and witty young woman. And when she has her own children, I'm quite sure they won't be "walloped" either. Thank God.
 
I would be in favour of all dogs to be muzzled in public, not just staffs etc., if it came to it that is. Last week I was bitten on the leg by a JRT which was tied outside a shop, no owner in sight. No damage done as I was wearing jeans, but it grabbed me as I passed and I had not spoken to it or looked at it even. I was in two minds as to whether or not to go into the shop to find the owner but I couldn't think what to say, but I have since seen the dog with its owner and will say something if I meet her out walking my dog. We don't have very many staffs round us, I can think of maybe 3 I see regularly but there are a number of dogs with clueless owners who don't seem to have a clue how to handle their dog and opt for the ' I'll just let it run loose' style of ownership. Rant over.
 
Dobiegirl said:
Well Im glad Im not in Ireland as my Dobes would have to be muzzled and Staffies,Ridgebacks,Akitas, Bull Mastiffs & German Shepherds would have to be as well. The daft thing is their crosses are as well ,by most rescue standards anything black & tan is either a Dobe cross or Rottie cross which goes to show how farcical the whole DDA is and how innocent dogs get caught up in this and are pts.
Click to expand...

That's why we never took our dogs on holiday there when I was a child.
 
Well they've got 14 days apparently to find a point of law to appeal on again, if anyone knows ANYONE with expert knowledge in this area of the 'law' then please, please get in touch via the official website.
 
CaveCanem said:
Well they've got 14 days apparently to find a point of law to appeal on again, if anyone knows ANYONE with expert knowledge in this area of the 'law' then please, please get in touch via the official website.
Click to expand...

Might it not be better for the poor dog to let him go now? As I understand it, the reason he's to be pts is because the powers that be have deemed him to have an unpredicatable temperament. They're not likely to change their minds about that, surely?

Poor lad's been locked up all this time, couldn't he be spared even more of that?
 
It's not my dog so I cannot speak for the Barnes family.
I do understand why they are continuing to fight - this is not just about Lennox.
A dog who was legally licensed, insured, for four years, but then seized by the same council who had issued the license for four years.
A dog deemed legal by all the authorities for four years, responsibly owned, suddenly deemed illegal, no complaint was ever made against this dog.
A string of procedural cock-ups along the way, ignored or covered up.
It's a precedent-setting case and as it stands, will be referred to in courtrooms up and down the country by the next council that wants to come for a responsibly-owned pet, because it is easier to target responsible people who respect the courts and the law, than a tattoed, skinheaded thug walking a ticking time bomb with no license, no insurance, not neutered, no microchip, no muzzle, allowed to roam and bite and terrorise - unlike Lennox.
By the way, those pics I referred to in another thread, stills from a hidden camera showing him being patted and fussed by a dog warden who said in court she was scared of him, show a dog who is obese, but generally happy looking.
 
Last edited:
Did they not produce the pics to show the warden as a liar? Most of this type of dog are pussy cats except with other dogs,it astonishes me..why was he picked up in the first place then?
 
I was not in court so I don't know if they were used, also they came in very late so don't know if there was time to include them in the defence bundle. They were online for a while but were removed. I have them saved on another computer.

I will need to double-check but as I recall, council visited the home after Ms Barnes re-applied for his license (allegations that they have an unpublicised policy of inspecting all dogs listed as bull x) sat and drank tea and smoked cigarettes, measured him with a dressmaker's tape measure, came back nine days later with an incorrect warrant with an incorrect address for a different area of the city and took him away. That was May 2010.
 
If the poor lad had a big bundle of paper wool to get comfy in and some toys it would be better,but now can see why they need to fight.
 
This is the link to the newspaper story from another thread:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ked-up-judge-rules-dog-must-die-15130806.html

The paper gives the reason he was picked up as:

"Lennox was picked up by council dog wardens after the animal showed signs of aggression during a routine licence inspection.

The court heard that officials were warned by Miss Barnes’ partner at the time that the dog would “rip your head off” if approached."

It also says he was "snapping and snarling" at officials.

Is the newspaper's account untrue?
 
That's not the newspaper's account, that was evidence given in court by the prosecution.
The defence account would obviously deny that.
As mentioned on another thread, which I am nearly sure you read (in fact, I made the above comment - this is sworn evidence, not a newspaper construct), I mentioned that a comment like “rip your head off” could be said in jest, "aye, he'll rip your head off! Ha ha!" but any good prosecution barrister would make a great deal of capital from that throwaway comment.
My mother and I used to refer to our own dogs as "vicious maneaters" but if you were actually in the room with us not reading black and white text, you would have seen that we were laughing and joking.
Do you think for a moment any parent (and I have had dealings with the family) would allow an aggressive, dangerous dog to be in the same home as a disabled child? Who regarded him as her 'therapy dog'?

Look, with respect Fiona, I am not going to change my mind any more than you are going to change yours. I will call a dog as I see it and we have had dogs put to sleep for behavioural problems before and I will no doubt do it again.
However from what I personally know of this case, not reading about it in the papers or online, it stinks to high heaven and is NOT JUST ABOUT LENNOX, it has far reaching and disturbing implications and is an erroneous application of the law regarding dangerous dogs.

If it was my dog, I know I would want support and I too would be screaming my dog's name from the rooftops.
As it is looking increasingly likely, I hope when that needle slides into Lennox's vein in his upper arm in a fortnight's time, people will realise the implication his death will have on a huge number of dogs who have done NOTHING WRONG.
My breed was the one everyone feared in the 70s and 80s and who is not to say it will not be included in some such list in future. Only the fact that they have been so useful to the police, army, the blind, etc, I think has been their salvation.
I think a lot of people are not seeing the bigger picture here. We are sleepwalking into dangerous territory here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top