Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A WORKING GROUP has been established in response to concerns around dog control and dog ownership.
Agriculture Minister Charlie McConalogue and Minister for Rural Affairs Heather Humphreys met yesterday to discuss how their respective Departments could deal with the issue.
It follows recent incidents which the Agriculture Minister has described as “harrowing” and which Minister Humphreys called “deeply disturbing”.
In one such incident on 27 November last year, a young boy was airlifted to Crumlin Hospital after he was attacked by a pit bill cross in Enniscorthy, Co Wexford.
The young boy has been left with life changing injuries.
Both ministers agreed to establish a working group that will examine issues such as fines under the Control of Dogs Act, enforcement at local authority level, the provision of dog wardens, microchipping, promoting responsible dog ownership and licences.
The group will meet in the coming days and report to the two ministers.
Minister McConalogue noted that he and Minister Humphreys have “primary responsibility in the area of dogs”.
He said: “There is a clear commitment from both of us to tackle this issue and ensure that the law is as robust as possible to ensure that both people and animals are safe.”
While he described dogs as “companions and loyal friends”, he also warned: “The harrowing scenes we have witnessed recently show the threat dogs can pose if they are not properly controlled by their owners.
“Both Minister Humphreys and I will work proactively on this in the time ahead.”
Speaking following yesterday’s meeting, Minister Humphreys also noted that “we have seen a number of deeply disturbing incidents in recent weeks”.
She noted that “devastating impact” that attacks by dogs can have on families.
Minister Humphreys added: “While the issue of dog control crosses a number of different Government Departments, as well as our local authorities, it is vital that we get to grips with this issue.
“That’s why, as a first step, Minister McConalogue and I have decided to set up a working group, which will consider all relevant legislative and enforcement issues in relation to dogs.
“This review will bring all the key players together to consider what action can be taken to keep both people and animals safe.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Enforcing the existing laws would be a good start and prison time for the owners if their animals cause harm to persons or property. Where do I send the invoice?
Proper dog ownership laws would help dogs as well as people. As a dog owner I am fully behind improved enforcement. This should include mandatory checks that your dog is microchipped & registered. Responsible owners have nothing to worry about & it might help with the amount of dogs being neglected & abused. In 12 years of having our dog, I have been asked once to provide details of my license. An inspector asked people in a local park who all had dogs on leads and whose dogs were being walked responsibly. I have had to leave parks at times due to scrotes with poor unfortunate dogs heading for my girl. I’ve never once seen anyone around to deal with that behaviour or owners who don’t clean up after their dog. Importantly there needs to be harsh punishment for illegal breeding too.
There is no enforecement of existing laws at all, our pound system is a disgrace, and both of these ministers have refused to tackle issues around using dogs for archaic sports, both legal and illegal. The market for breeders is an absolute wild west with unregistered breeders pumping out poorly bred designer dogs.
Everything ‘good’ about the support for dog owners in this country is volunteer led and donation funded.
It’s all very well saying they’re going to tackle the issues but I don’t believe they know what the issues are beyond ‘big dog bites child’. Microchipping and registration need to be mandatory with steep enforcement, irresponsible owners need to be registered with SEVERE punishment for repeat offenders AND those supplying them the dogs, and illegal/unregulated breeding has to be stamped out with mandatory sentences instead of suspending short sentences and imposing trivial fines. It’s correct to restrict certain breeds, but cared for properly and bred correctly there’s no reason that a pit bull is any more likely to go rogue than a terrier. They just cause more damage when they do.
My sister was bitten by a dog while out walking recently. She’s just one of many who have been bitten by the same dog, the owner claims they can’t (more like won’t) keep him fenced in. Fortunately for the dog, my sister isn’t the type to demand it be euthanised, though many would. The owner offered to pay her medical expenses (dog broke the skin on her leg & she had to get tetanus) but making sure it didn’t keep biting people would be preferable.
Similarily, my partner has had “word” with neighbours who allow their dog to chase his sheep around the field. A few days later, the same dog chased me as I walked along the road so their claim that they had confined him was lies. He had dozens of sheep killed in a dog attack several years ago so is always wary of loose dogs in rural areas.
Blame the owners – not the dogs or the particular breeds, I don’t believe any breed is more likely to attack than another, it’s all how they’re trained and treated. The dog I’ve most often received a nip from would be the common Jack Russell yet nobody is looking to put them on a dangerous dog list. Make the owners take responsiblity, or hand the dogs over to someone who will properly train and care for them.
@Yvonne_Ellard: I agree it’s down to training I have 3 Jack Russell’s and around people I always keep them on a lead just in case.
Classic too little too late, with a bit of feet dragging and prior ineptitude enforcing laws. No pun intended, but so far the laws seem all bark and no bite. I hope any victim has access to private civil law for the purpose of suing, and suing good.
@Keth Warsaw: That pun is too appropriate to be unintended.
The neighbours cats digs up our vegetables. They stalk and kill wildlife indiscriminately they are not contained or neutered, continually drawing every other stray in from around the place. These “pets” consistently evacuate themselves on neighbours front doorsteps and recently, neighbours children became very ill after playing in their little sand pit, which is another haunt for these mangy animals. What laws are in place to protect humans from injury and disease because their cat is allowed to roam free? I do not disagree with the responsibility that should be held upon owners, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Not all dog owners are irresponsible, nor are individuals entitled to restrict responsible owners because of irresponsible owners. But cats actually cause more injury (disease and destruction of wildlife) than any domestic dog. Dogs are some of the best people I know.
@cathalsurfs: if cats are a becoming a pest on your property, treat them as such. There are legal ways and means to deter or eliminate the problem.
@Fuji Hakayito: There are no legal ways to ‘eliminate’ a cat.
@Tommy Shaughnessy: This is correct. Unfortunately, this is also why people resort to cruelty, which no animal deserves. It also highlights the fact that those who own cats (or other animals) that are allowed to stray, are committing acts of abuse themselves.
I don’t believe in banning certain breeds but I do agree with a restricted breeds list where prospective owners would need to undertake a breed-specific handling and husbandry course to obtain a licence to own a restricted breed, which could be revoked if the individual fails to meet their responsibilities to the dog or the public.
have your say