New By Laws protest

[Fingal Dogs]

Fingal Dog Owners group have organised a protest at 9.30 am on January 5th at Malahide green opposite Starbucks at the bottom of new street.
Fingal county council have introduced new restrictive and discriminatory by laws relating to the control of dogs in local parks. We have tried to reason with the council and have so far been ignored. FCC have said the basis for these changes were due to significant reports of dog related incidents. Yet after a FOI request we discovered there was not one incident reported in any Fingal parks in the last 2 years! We wish to have these new by laws reversed.
Had the old by laws been enforced properly there would have been no need to change them. We believe this to be about revenue more than anything else. The dog warden tendor has been given to Ashton dog pound by FCC, who also feature on the tax defaulters list!!
FCC have started to install dog cages in the regional parks, these are dangerous for you and your dog. Please do not use them. We have written confirmation from the ISPCA, Pete the vet and other dog behaviourists to support this. Not only this but they completely change the look of the park. The valley in Swords has already been destroyed by these, don't let it happen to your park!
Please join us on January 5th for a peaceful protest, find us on Facebook Fingal,dog owners group

[Ken]

What are the changes? Is it with regard to dogs being off lead?

[estuarine]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree here. I had a couple of very frightening experiences in Newbridge House where I have been charged at by aggressive, uncontrolled dogs whose owners were both in denial and hostile. Moreover, I have indeed lodged complaints with FCC albeit not in writing.

We must all accept reasonable curbs on our freedoms if we are to respect the freedoms and safety of others. That's called living in society. Being charged at or attacked by a dog you don't know is a terrifying experience and everyone is entitled to be safe in the park.

[Fingal Dogs]

Yes it's regarding dogs being off lead. Of course people are entitled to disagree. However the original by law stated that dogs must be kept under effective control. If a dog is charging at you then it's not under control and there for the owner should have been fined but unfortunately the wardens and FCC never enforced this so irresponsible owners were never held accountable and in return now responsible owners are being punish, which is the part that is causing grievance. We don't find this to be a reasonable curb, as it has completely removed our freedom as dog walkers and one of the main park users from using the park.
Also We would be interested to know what other group of park users have had to accept reasonable curbs and what these curbs are if this is to be equal to everyone? And would like to engage with them to find a solution that's fair to everyone.
The council have not recorded any dog related incidents in any of the Fingal parks including Newbridge in writing/phone/email etc
Its possibly we may not be the only ones being ignored

[OU812]

Unfortunately I have had quite a number of incidents with dogs in Newbridge and Malahide park, to be honest I never thought of reporting them to Fingal Co Co but will be doing so in the future. Almost all the owners I've confronted after these events say the same thing "hes only playing" "he wont bite" etc. The amount of dogs off the lead around the farm is disgraceful add to that the fouling, so I welcome the new by laws the sooner they are introduced and inforced the better.

[Mr. Stupid]

Have to say I feel sorry for responsible dog owners who treat their dogs well and clean up their poo's.
At the same times, the ones who don't clean up the poo are a friggin disgrace.

[Peter V]

Sorry to say I have to agree with bye-laws on controlling dogs. Quite a few run ins with dog owners letting their dogs fall behind them and playing dumb to the inevitable in NB House.
Also I have two family members who are scared of dogs because of past attacks and it ruins their peace of mind to have animals haring about. OU812 is spot on with the usual response to any complaint about pets' behaviour.

[Ken]

I don't know why they bother with laws governing dogs as they are never enforced. Has anyone ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for their dog fowling? Has never happened as far as I'm aware. I can't see any change to the laws around dogs on leads being enforced either.

[diggerbarnes]

If they didn't have those laws all those people who do clean up after their dogs wouldn't do it. Some do it because it's the law, others because they don't want to be seen to be breaking the law. Same with leashes.

[Quello Serio]

If they didn't have those laws all those people who do clean up after their dogs wouldn't do it.

I disagree. I clean up regardless of laws, or signs or what others would think. I don't like anyone getting s**t on shoes.

[Ken]

I disagree. I clean up regardless of laws, or signs or what others would think. I don't like anyone getting s**t on shoes.

Same here. You're either the type of person that takes personal responsibility or you aren't. The existance of non-enforced laws makes no difference.

[kenny]

Unfortunately it was just a matter of time before Fingal/Ireland caught up with the rest of the world regarding dogs on leashes. I think it's hard for dog owners to understand how many people are afraid of their dog. Other places have leash free areas which people know to avoid. Surely Newbridge is big enough for a field somewhere to be marked as an off lead area to let the dogs loose?

[Spider]

I'm a responsible dog owner. I pick up after my dog and keep him on a leash near people. Recently we were allocated an off leash area in the park which is completely unsuitable. It's a mucky field with a gate wide enough for dogs to run out onto the adjacent road (Cobb's Lane). Dog owners are probably the most frequent users of the park and deserve a better facility than the one we've been allocated. It would have made more sense to allocate the field beside the entrance gate, ample room for dogs to run and still out of the way of most pedestrians. Dogs need to be allowed exercise off lead and as long as proper and adequate facilities are provided for all park users this shouldn't neex to be an issue.

[estuarine]

Asking what other park users have had to accept reasonable curbs on their freedoms when we are talking here about the control of animals versus the safety of humans really sums up how ill-thought out your opposition to these bye-laws is, how inconsiderate many dog owners are towards others and how fundamentally immature your whole argument is.

In society, in general, we accept curbs on our freedoms. I can't drive a powerful car at 140km/h through Donabate because that is a dangerous and reckless thing to do and the law tells me I can't. Will that do?

Now, if you want to propose that children be walked on a leash in the park to compensate for your dog having to be restrained, go right ahead. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you come up with something a little more sensible.

[Fingal Dogs]

Not really it's a genuine question to the comment we all have to accept curbs on our freedom, so as park users what other curbs have had to be accepted?
I don't think you can compare dangerous driving to responsibly walking a dog off leash and no one mentioned putting children on leashes. It's crazy to insinuate we would suggest that.
All park users should be considered equal, corralling one group into a small unsuitable field is unjust. These cages and fields are dangerous for dogs and their owners. There are no paths, bins, benches, mucky unlevel surfaces, very solitary and unaccessable for some people with disabilities.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but surely there's a better compromise here than forcing the main park users to lap a small field all year round in a bid to exercise their dogs properly.
Irresponsible dog owners will continue to be irresponsible. This will not curb fouling. As the dog will still have to go to the toilet wether it's on of off a lead. These are the owners that should have been fined in the beginning but they weren't so now we're all being punished.

[Flatfoot]

The new laws if enforced are a good idea. But the area provided for the dogs should be fit for purpose. Common sense would suggest a better facility would encourage its use. I'm not sure if dog owners are the main park users but one uncontrolled dog off the lead impacts on everyone it comes into contact with. I do encounter more dogs off the lead than on when running in Newbridge Park. While I'm always wary luckily the vast majority of them are friendly. Nobody dislikes an irresponsible dog owner more than a responsible dog owner.

[estuarine]

Ok, so the OP wants to suggest that he/she is being treated unequally. Let's look at that. If I and FingalDogs wish to take a walk in the park, and someone tells the OP that they can only walk in one small area whereas I can use the whole park, then clearly that is unequal treatment. But if the OP goes for a walk in the park and I arrive on a motorbike and a park ranger approaches me and tells me I'll have to park the bike and walk because motorised vehicles are not allowed, then I am being treated perfectly fairly since nobody is preventing me from using the park on the same basis as the OP. What I am being prevented from doing is breaking the bye-laws and behaving in a manner that is detrimental to the safety and enjoyment of other park users.

Now FingalDogs is trying to argue that he/she is being prevented from enjoying the park on an equal basis to me or anyone else. This is clearly untrue since FingalDogs is entering the park with a dog which could, in certain circumstances, present a danger to other park users or at least detract from their quiet enjoyment of the park. Dogs are animals. They do not react as humans do. If I met the OP in the park, I would be most unlikely to run towards them and start running around them. If I met a friend in the park, I wouldn't be inclined to sniff their bottom. If a dog meets another dog, that's usually the mildest of greetings! Somewhere in this whole discussion, the OP has lost the ability to distinguish between the rights of humans and those of animals. They are not equal which does not mean that animals are devoid of rights. Dogs need exercise - yes. But it is absolutely proportionate to limit that opportunity to a defined area whilst other park users can go on without the fear that is often brought about by a large dog off the lead.

For the record, I think dogs can be wonderful friends and companions but I prefer to err on the side of caution when meeting them for the first time. From the other responses here, I am not alone. I think the OP and their friends need to reflect on that.

[Fingal Dogs]

Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated and we do understand that other types of park users will want different things. Let's hope we can find a fairer solution that works for everyone

[Mr. Stupid]

Hold on a sec... What's the issue here? Owner are being asked to keep their dogs on a leash in a public space. Struggling to see the problem here. They can scare little kids and the dogs are getting designated areas to run off the leash. Sounds like it's win win.

[McLovin]

Just heard a resprestenative of the cause speak on newstalk. Absolutely pointless having that lad on he made no sense.

It appears that the proposal is that dogs are on a lesh between 10 and 6pm in parks, the survey they did resulted in 77% agree that dogs should be on a lead.


I don't see the issue with it. The issue I have is if a dog is off a lead the owner doesn't know when or where a dog has taken a dump that's my issue. Just have a quick look on your next walk there is shit everywhere.

[midsomermurderer]

I don't know why they bother with laws governing dogs as they are never enforced. Has anyone ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for their dog fowling? Has never happened as far as I'm aware. I can't see any change to the laws around dogs on leads being enforced either.

I've reported someone who continuously lets their dog foul in Donabate. A signed witness statement is with Fingal Co Co so hoping a €150 fine will soon be on its way to the offender.

[Sommie15]

If all dog owners could control their dogs this would not be as big an issue. I run regularly in the park and on the beaches. You can tell the difference between an owner who is in control of their dog(s) from a distance. And the ones who are not. How many dog owners can successfully call their dog(s) to heel? My estimate is less than 1 in 10.
I have been attacked several times over the years, both on the beach and in the park. I complained only once after a dog attached himself to my arm while the owner ran the other way. I am used to hearing owners scream at their dogs to come back while the dog sprints towards another target. I am tired of hearing dog owners shout "he won't bite you" or "he's only being lively". So if you are a dog owner and are not prepared to put the time and effort in to training your dog properly then accept these bye laws and please stop complaining. If you have put the time and effort into training your dog then I do feel some sympathy however we live in a democracy and this is one of the small inconveniences you should accept.

[Ken]

I've listened to the arguements in the media and I can see both sides of this. As a dog owner, I don't let my dog off the lead. He's a Beagle and if he got the scent of something I'd never see him again. He's also hit and miss with other dogs so that's another reason for keeping him on lead. Therefore, the new by-law won't impact me.

However, I do see people who have their dogs off lead in Newbridge. For the most part, the dogs are very well behaved and have good recall so don't bother me when I'm out with my dog. I've had a few instances where dogs off lead come over to my dog and it can result in either agression or me having my arm pulled out of its socket. I've pointed out to several people that they should have control over their dog and I get looks as though I'm mad. I presume these would be the same dogs that would bother joggers etc.

If Fingal are providing an area for dogs off lead, it should be fit for purpose. It does sound as though they've allocated somewhere pretty inaccessible in terms of footpaths etc. Surely there are other more suitable areas in a park as big as Newbridge.

Like most issues around dog ownership, a few bad owners get the majority a bad name.

[John Blowick]

This is all a lot of hot air..people and their children are entitled to use the public parks without the threat of uncontrolled dogs.
Pat will only respond to strict enforcement and the threat of serious fines and if not there will feel free to let his hound fowl as and where he likes.
The amount of dog fowling in all public parks is scandalous and a serious threat to kids playing...as are dogs roaming free in these areas.
I urge Fingal Co.Co to hold fast and not be bullied by any group....

[Sunny]

Now if could also enforce the by-laws around the horses on Donabate beach as well, that would be great. They certainly don't clean up after themselves.