Dublin to ban GSD effective immideately! - Page 2

D.H., that's a fine letter for an Irishman to send.

For anyone else, the correspondence should be addressed to this guy: http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie/aboutus/MinBio.html.

Simply state that if this ban is not reversed, you will be taking your tourist dollars, euros, yuan, yen, rubles, krona, pesos etc. to other countries.  No Aer Lingus tickets, no hotel room bills, no Waterford crystal, no linens, no pints, no nuthin' at all from you, including the taxes on all of it.  If they hear that from several thousand people, then maybe a little pressure will be applied.

5 million people visit Ireland every year, and over 100,000 Irish are employed in tourism.  When money talks, government listens.

As for the Council's concern about their own liability for dog bites occurring on their properties, they could easily ask the Irish Parliament to bar any claims for dog bites against municipal property owners.  But that wouldn't make as splashy a headline.  

Typical socialist agenda at work again.  Trying to improve safety at the expense of individual rights.....Guess you can't have a gun to protect you and now can't even have a dog to protect you. 

Sad state of affairs for those across the pond.

However, this should be a wake up call especially for the folks in California.  This type of legislation will be used as "precedent" to get similar laws passed here.  Advocates will dress this up as a bill that is more "progressive" or "sophisticated" since the lunatics that put it in place happen to be European.......forgive me Irish bretheren, but Americans do consider you European.....

But if any good Irishman is crazy enough to lay down for such nonsense.....let me know how much you want for your dog.

"Typical socialist agenda at work again.  Trying to improve safety at the expense of individual rights....."

The same could just as readily be said about the current allegedly "conservative" Administration in Washington, which seems to think the U.S. Constitution is a fly to be swatted away when it gets in the way of things like warrantless wiretaps and detention without trial.  Grinding up individual freedoms isn't just for lefties anymore.

I think the key word in your statement was "allegedly".  If you don't beleive the administration to be conservative....well then maybe they are lefties.

Oh, and not to split hairs but detention without trial has been done before....see Abe Lincoln....and warrantless wiretaps of international communications has always been done, it was called spying.

The whole Gitmo thing is kinda new though.  In the old days those folks were considered sabateurs, partisans, or geurilla fighters.  Geneva convention allows them to be shot immediately, I get all warm and cozy thinking that we have moved away from firing squads.

Amazed at the lack of interest here folks. Posting something to bring it up to the top again. 

It could happen in your town, your state, your country. Guess if it does not happen in the US its not worth doing much about or talking much about?    Not til it happens close to home anyways. 

P59, yes very nice letter indeed. Great suggestions from your end too. Have already forwarded them.

The scary part here is that as far as I know for the first time the GSD is listed as a dangerous dog breed in a European country. In Germany the SV influence is strong enough to keep the GSD off these lists. That backup is not there in other countries though. Once one country has established the GSD as a dangerous breed it opens the doors to a lot of BS for the breed in all sort of places. And then it can happen in your town too. Never mind that SchH sport is already under a very critical eye in a lot of places, including Germany. Ban the breed, ban the sport. If little is done about it GSD enthusiast are very much deserving of it then. So don't come crying later.

This is obsurd. The ban needs to be on the derelicts who should not be allowed to own ANY dog.  It's phenominal that it's come to this, but it would be better if you would have to apply for a license to own a particular breed of dog, than to ban them entirely. 

D.H.

Is it correct that we are talking about that these dogs are to be banned from public housing?  If so, then without understanding the politics of the Dublin Council, I would think that this ban was promulgated on some tragic event, perhaps resulting in a law suit and ultimately being paid by the public.

Do you have more background on what promulgated this decision?  Do you perhaps have a link to a dog forum in Ireland that might be discussing this very matter? 

As far as not caring, all I can say that in the private rental sector, this type of ban already exists in the USA.  Case in point, I sold a puppy to a couple that were moving from TX to MA, and rented an apartment short-term after their house was sold in TX.  They said they had a "shepherd" and this was not a problem for the lessor.  When the lessor saw that it was a "German" shepherd, the couple within 24 hours had to vacate the apartment and find other housing.  This couple had the financial means and the will to move for their dog. 

When it comes to property and housing, I believe this is more of a civil matter than something like a breed ban in a particular geographical area.  The fact that the councilman would like the ban to be nationwide is an opinion but certainly cannot be done without greater political impetus on a national level. 

More details would be welcome.

I would like to know the though process behind the ban too. In San Fransisco, they implemented a mandated spay/neuter act but did not make people who already had dogs, to get rid of them or all out ban the breeds. You have to have a license and be a breeder to have dogs of that breed un-altered. anybody can stillown them, they just have to be altered. I still disagree with this but it makes me think something terribly horrific must have happened, to put all of those well behaved dogs in jeopardy. It is quite drastic to give a time limit so short ,to remove all dogs from homes like that! I cannot believe this is happening in our world today. Everything must be PC yet they take our rights, right and left. "For the sake of our own safety", that lame excuse is the one that bites me the deepest. If we keep going this way, we will all end up in our own padded rooms, for safeties sake!

If I lived in Dublin, I would be looking to move!

"When the lessor saw that it was a "German" shepherd, the couple within 24 hours had to vacate the apartment and find other housing."

Under Massachusetts landlord/tenant law, if the tenants had a written lease for a specified term and the lease was silent as to the presence of dogs, then they could have told the landlord to go pound sand for the duration of the lease. Even if they rented as tenants at will with no written lease, the landlord was required under law to give them thirty days notice of termination of the tenancy, then serve a written demand to vacate, and then wait an additional fourteen days before beginning a "summary process" lawsuit to evict them.

I've represented numerous landlords seeking to evict tenants in Massachusetts.  The eviction process is heavily slanted in favor of the tenant, can take several months if the tenant is even halfway knowledgeable about his rights and/or seeks the assistance of a publicly-funded tenant assistance lawyer, and is a total pain in the ass.   

Hi p59teitel,

The incident occured in Dallas, TX.  I must just add, the couple did not want to be where their dog was not wanted.  They had the movers come, found a nice apartment complex that took dogs and were happy.  Besides this, the pup could have stayed with me until they had to leave the area.  But they opted for the move so that they could be with their dog.  These tenants are really the type of tenants all landlords would love to have.  Responsible dog owners.