Man's worst enemy

Dublin City Council has recently banned 11 breeds of dog in houses and flats under its control. The rationale is understandable; these breeds are considered dangerous, have been the source of complaints from other residents, and would compromise the council legally in the event of a serious attack. In England, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides for a ban on the breeding, sale or possession of certain breeds. In this jurisdiction there is no comparable legislation- although the Control of Dogs Act 1986 allows for dangerous individual animals to be destroyed- which may be why the local authority felt compelled to act off its own bat.

Was it right to? Any measure which limits individual freedom should be scrutinised closely, to be sure; and the fact that only council houses are affected seems a little unjust. Private homes can still hold as many Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers or Alsatians as they want. Even they will not be able to be walked on council property- i.e. public parks- if the council implements planned changes in its by-laws.

The DSPCA points out that dangerous dogs are to be found "among any breed or crossbreed", so singling out a few notorious ones may not be particularly effective. They also claim that proper implementation of existing rules on muzzling etc would help the situation greatly. But somewhat puzzlingly, and apparently with a straight face, they say:

"A simple solution would be to require mandatory neutering, microchipping and guardianship registration for dogs placed on the list".

Christ. I'd hate to see their idea of a complicated solution. The ban on these creatures may be a blunt instrument, but if it prevents even one or two attacks then it's justified. They're not taking away the right to own a dog, after all, and it beggars belief that people would want a potentially vicious animal like a pit bull around the place anyway. After all, what's wrong with a poodle?