Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today’s meeting is to undertake an examination of dangerous dog breeds and sheep worrying. The committee will hear from a canine behavioural expert and officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

It will also hear from officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development.

All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others against the risk of contracting Covid-19.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the directions of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse comments should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who choose to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in committee meetings when their participation is within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance concerning participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.

The committee will hear from a canine behaviour expert, Ms Nanci Creedon, director of Creedons College of Canine Studies. It will hear from the following from the Department of Rural and Community Development: Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer, and Ms Catherine Burns, assistant principal. It will hear from the following from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Dr. Eoin Ryan, senior superintending veterinary inspector, animal welfare division, and Dr. Mary McCarthy, principal officer, animal health and import policy division.

Ms Creedon is very welcome. I call on her to make her opening statement, which is to be followed by questions from the members.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I thank the Chairman very much for the opportunity to speak on the topic of dangerous dogs and offer some assistance on the topic. It is a topic I am extremely passionate about.

In 2017, my research on dog bites in Ireland was published in the Irish Veterinary Journal. This research compared the characteristics of bites from legislated dog breeds and non-legislated dog breeds to determine what differences exist in the characteristics of the two groups. The research found no significant difference between a bite from a dog on the restricted breed list and a bite from a dog on the non-restricted breed list in regard to the age of the victim, the location on the body of the bite, the relationship between the victim and the dog, and whether the dog has a history of aggression. There is no difference in the severity of the bites in terms of the medical treatment required to treat them. However, a statistical difference arose in respect of whether the dog bite was reported to the dog warden and the Garda, with the study finding that bites of dogs on the restricted breed list are more likely to be reported to the authorities.

On the matter of dog breeds and breed-specific traits, we have yet to define a breed-specific trait that is not a species-specific trait of all dogs. When we examine different breeds, we can say certain of them are better at herding or following a scent, for example. However, there are many individuals in each breed that are pretty poor at doing whatever their specific job is. There are many collies in rescue centres throughout Ireland because they are not good at being collies, and there are many individual dogs from other breeds, and maybe some pigs, that may be better at herding than some collies. In my line of work, assuming that a dog will display certain behaviours or have a certain temperament due to its breed displays ignorance. I would never assume when meeting a new dog – a beagle, for example – that it will do X, Y or Z. I have worked with countless purebred dogs that simply do not behave typically of their breed.

A dog displaying aggressive behaviour is absolutely not doing so because of its breed. Instead, aggressive behaviour is a product of the environment the dog is in, its arousal level at the time and its experiences. A dog's choosing of aggressive behaviour is absolutely in the context of the situation. Whenever we are looking at a dog that has bitten or is behaving aggressively, we are looking at the circumstances and asking what is going on to cause the behaviour.

In Ireland, we have a list of restricted breeds, and dogs of these breeds, or breed mixes, must be muzzled, on a leash and handled by a person over 16 while in public. This is what is in the current legislation to minimise dog bites and dog bite fatalities.

While there are no formal records of the fatality, I have learned from a friend of the death of a young boy in Ballincollig, County Cork, who died several decades ago after receiving several bites from a litter of six-month-old greyhound puppies. Teresa McDonagh was killed by a dog attack in Galway in 2017. The attack occurred on the grounds of her son's property, where bullmastiff dogs were kept, again not in breach of the Control of Dogs Act. Eight-year-old Glen Murphy was killed by two Rottweilers in his home in Dublin in 2020. Four-month-old Mia O'Connell lost her life in 2021 due to a fatal dog bite from a dachshund.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a vótáil in the Dáil, so the Deputies must leave. So as not to have to suspend the meeting, I ask Senator Paul Daly to take the Chair. I am sorry for interrupting Ms Creedon. The Senators will stay with her.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

The Control of Dogs Act was not breached in any of the cases I have mentioned, nor did it save the individuals' lives.

I am a dog behaviour expert with a master's degree in animal behaviour and welfare and well over a decade of experience working with dogs of all breeds. Most important, I am a mother of two young children. I am passionate about dog bite prevention and minimising the likelihood of a fatal or life-changing dog attack on any member of the public. In this regard, I strongly believe the legislation needs to change.

Everyone is asking what should be done, including the media. The people of Ireland want something done, and this committee itself is calling for legislation that will minimise fatal and serious dog attacks. On the questions of why the attacks are happening and how we should minimise the risk of recurrence, we do not have straight answers because we have no data. As soon as a dog kills a person, it is put to sleep. If it is a serious attack, the person receives medical treatment and everything is forgotten about. We then carry on asking why the attack happened. We need experts to gather the data instead of sweeping things under the rug, which is not helping.

Before any legislation changes, we first need to appoint a dog bite prevention organisation that will appoint members to investigate the events of serious and fatal dog attacks and assess the dogs prior to euthanasia. I am not saying we do not euthanise the dogs; we do. However, we should gather data from them first and then start to build a picture of the characteristics of serious dog bites, with the intention of using the data to build more appropriate legislation.

As it stands, very minimal investigations are carried out by the Garda and dog wardens, who are untrained in this very specialist subject matter. Therefore, appointing dog behaviour experts to investigate incidents from a bite prevention point of view is critical.

Like many, I believe educating the masses will help to minimise the number of dog bites. The Chicago Task Force on Companion Animals and Public Safety determined that responsible ownership is key to reducing canine aggression. The American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human–Canine Interactions proposed a six-step approach to minimising dog bites, which is in line with what I would recommend. It proposed to cover identifying issues. It is well known that it is extremely difficult for dog professionals to identify the breed of a mixed breed dog accurately, so we need to find a better way of identifying such dogs initially. The task force also proposed to identify groups, professionals and individuals and develop an advisory council; implement preventive measures and develop a reporting system; engage in data management and analysis; develop educational programmes; and have interactions with the media.

As a dog behaviourist who sees many cases of dog bites and aggressive dog behaviour, I note that the aggressive behaviours could almost always be avoided if dog owners had a better understanding of dog behaviour and how to manage their dogs' environment and handling to minimise their need to carry out aggressive behaviours.

The Internet and social media are filled with incorrect, unscientific,and, quite often, dangerous dog behaviour and training advice. The dog-owning public is turning to the Internet for lack of State-derived advice and education. Educational programmes can be implemented in a variety of ways. The most effective method of owner education would be to legislate to make it mandatory to pass a theory test prior to obtaining a dog licence. As we have learned, a dog of any breed and size can cause a fatality, similar to how a car of any size can cause a fatality. Drivers must be educated to a competent level before taking control of a car that can cause harm if driven in the wrong way. Likewise, dog owners should have to be educated to a competent level before taking control of a dog that can cause harm if handled the wrong way. This theory test could be structured using the exact same model as the current driving theory test and would cover many topics focusing on dog safety and minimising dog bites. Owning a dog should not be cheap, and the funds raised through dog licence applications could be channelled back into educational programmes.

The dog bite prevention organisation would oversee State-run educational campaigns aimed at young children, among others, and conducted through websites and the media.

The dog bite prevention organisation would be appointed to investigate reports of aggressive dogs, providing the public with a go-to body to which to report incidents, and, in turn, would gather data to generate annual reports and give a realistic picture of what is happening in Ireland in respect of dog bites and aggressive behaviours.

As the population of dogs in Ireland continues to grow, dog bites and, unfortunately, dog fatalities are inevitable. As a mother and a dog behaviour expert, I know how critical it is that we do all we can to minimise these incidents and I strongly believe that putting dog behaviour experts at the forefront of creating and implementing legislation would be the best approach.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for their time. I am available to answer any questions and to provide any support or guidance I can in any way to help oversee this and to decrease the number of dog bites.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Ms Creedon. As you will have seen, our colleagues from the Dáil have had to go for a vote, so we will continue with my Seanad colleagues. While Senator McGreehan was on the Chair's list, I am obliged to call on Senator Boylan first as a member of the committee.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Senator McGreehan. I thank Ms Creedon for her informative opening statement. One of the key reasons I requested that we have a session on dog bites, dangerous dogs, sheep-worrying and related issues is that I want us to react with an evidence-based approach to this. We are all in agreement that we want these dog attacks to end if we can stop them, but there have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions in the media calling for more dogs to be added to the dangerous breeds list and for certain breeds to be banned. As Ms Creedon said, crossbreeds can be hard to identify.

I have a couple of questions. In her opening statement she said that the dog does not behave aggressively because of its breed but, instead, because it is a product of its environment. Does that include the environment into which the dog was born? One of my concerns is the lack of socialisation we see, the lack of handling and the stress dogs are under when they are industrially bred. Does that play into the behavioural characteristics we then see coming out? Even the pounds into which some rescue dogs that have been surrendered talk about resource-guarding and so on. Does that affect the behaviour of a dog?

My next question is about the dog bite prevention advisory council, which I think is what Ms Creedon called it, which is an interesting idea. As she said, data are key to this. Are other jurisdictions doing this? There is a reference in Ms Creedon's opening statement to Chicago, but is this sort of model in existence anywhere else?

My last question is on the idea responsible ownership. When pounds and shelters are trying to re-home animals, there are often comments on their websites from people saying it is so hard to get a dog from the pound, the staff make it very difficult or they will not allow dogs into certain houses. In Ms Creedon's experience, is that a case of the shelters and the rescues carrying out due diligence in respect of dog ownership and ensuring that the dog goes to an appropriate family or home with a secure garden? Is that something that, as she said, should be done across the board as opposed to just by the rescue shelters?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

As for puppy farms and early socialisation with dogs, there are between five and 12 weeks to expose a dog to as many different animals and people and anything that is a social experience as possible. True socialisation has to occur between five and 12 weeks. After 12 weeks the dog has left its socialisation period. It can learn and can have lots of pleasant or negative experiences, but between five and 12 weeks, if that dog is not exposed correctly to people and other animals, it will not be able to bond with people or take to them as almost like the same species, more or less.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that five to 12 weeks of age or five to 12 weeks in any one environment?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Five to 12 weeks of age. That is why responsible breeders are amazing. "Dog breeding" is not a dirty term. Responsible breeders who truly socialise their dogs during that period build solid, bombproof, friendly family dogs. If you are on a puppy farm and all you see in your early weeks is a strange person coming in, perhaps manhandling you, putting you into a different pen and then walking away, your mother dog will become anxious when that person approaches. The puppy then learns that strangers are a scary experience. We see so many dogs come to us from puppy farms with significant behavioural problems. Funnily enough - again, I would love to have the data on it - when dogs with serious behavioural problems come for behaviour consultations, it is rare that they have come from a responsible breeder. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any responsibly bred dog that has ever come to me with problems. The first questions I will ask are where the dog came from, where the owner met it, whether he or she met the mum, what the setup was like and whether the puppy spent its early weeks in a home where it was hearing TV, the central heating was coming on, the telephone was ringing - all those normal experiences dogs are used to when they live in a family home. If they do not have exposure to those experiences prior to 12 weeks, it will be intimidating. The dog will then be more likely to show fear-based behaviours, and quite a significant number of dog bites come when the dog is feeling fearful and defensive and then, obviously, will offensively attack. When it comes to puppy farms and dangerous dogs, therefore, if the dog has a poor early existence, it is more likely to have behavioural problems. There will be a link. The challenge in this country, unfortunately, is finding responsibly bred dogs. They really are unicorns. In some ways, perhaps responsible breeders should be supported a little more because it is so easy to go out and spend €1,500 on a cockapoo that has fleas, is six-and-a-half weeks old and does not have the correct vaccinations. That happens all the time, and those dogs can then have behavioural problems. The first step, then, is raising healthy, behaviourally healthy, normal puppies.

The next question-----

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I know I fired a load of questions at Ms Creedon. One of them was about the dog bite prevention body. Are such bodies running in other jurisdictions that we can examine? We have a tendency in Ireland to look to Britain because of the language comparison and because it uses a similar system with a dangerous dog breed list, but it has not reduced the number of dog attacks.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

No. Britain introduced the Dangerous Dogs Acts to ban pitbulls and a small number of breeds and they have seen an increase in the number of those dogs, so banning the breeds just glorifies them. If people want a big scary dog, they will pick the one that is banned.

When it comes to bite prevention setup, the Merseyside Dog Safety Partnership is run by a veterinary behaviour expert, Carri Westgarth, and is seeing fantastic results. It is doing all the things I have suggested. It is going into the schools, assessing dogs and gathering so much data, and all those data can then feed back in the right way, starting with the education of parents. If we start to find that a large number of serious bites occur from dogs that have been recently bought, then maybe we start educating people that for the first six weeks they need to be careful to take extra precautions and so on. However, I cannot advise as to what we should definitely do because we just do not know. We just do not have the data. They are doing that on Merseyside. They are gathering the data and churning that back into their practices. It would not be that difficult to implement. I would offer my services free of charge. I know a number of dog behaviour experts who are just itching to do something. At the moment I feel so frustrated. It is almost like being in a straitjacket because I know the information that will help to minimise dog bites, but how do I get to the masses?

The next question, I think, was about adopting dogs-----

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It feeds into what Ms Creedon said about responsible breeders in that with responsible breeders people nearly have to interview to get the dog. It is the same with shelters and pounds. They will gasp at the photographs of where the dog will be kept. There is no keeping the dog outside overnight. There are all those questions, and they will not re-home an adult dog with young children. That is again correct because the shelter or pound cannot give a guarantee. The problem then, however, is that if it is made difficult to re-home rescue dogs and we still do not close the other avenue, people will not get dogs from the rescues where they are doing the due diligence; they will go and get them from the online adverts. I say that just to put on the record the reasons shelters do that quizzing and how important it is that people find dogs that suit their particular families and their particular environments.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

People need to understand why these restrictions are there and why the shelters and pounds are so adamant to ensure that their guidelines are followed when it comes to re-homing a dog. They see the negative side if they re-home a dog to a home that does not have a fenced in garden. The dog disappears and ends up back in the pound and so on. When it comes to adopting a dog, having young children and having a dog is hard work. It is an extra child in the house so, again, they will see the negative side of that, of the dogs then coming into rescue centres because the parents have young children and do not have the time for the dogs.

From the rescue centre point of view, it is just common sense. Centres are trying to minimise the probability of the dog being handed back and it being an unsuccessful rescue. For the dog-loving public, however, there is a miscommunication. They get frustrated that they are not allowed to get dogs. They ask why, since they are wonderful people and would be wonderful dog owners, they cannot get dogs. They can get dogs if they pay €1,500 for some sort of mixed-breed designer dog. The people selling those dogs are doing so for financial gain. There is no other reason to breed those mixed-breed dogs for €1,500. To make money, they have to minimise their costs. Spending many man hours socialising dogs, bringing them on their first car rides, handling them, grooming them, and ensuring the correct exposures like responsible breeders do is time-consuming and financially costly. If someone is spending a great deal of money on a poorly bred dog, he or she is likely to be buying a dog from a place that has little interest in anything other than financial gain.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions. Actually, they are more statements than questions. While they may come across as negative, I am not being negative. I am just playing devil's advocate for the purpose of the debate.

I have an issue with restricted breeds. Ms Creedon stated that uneducated owners were also to blame. All dogs, irrespective of breed or size, have a pack mentality and are hunters by nature. There are people who say that their dogs are not on the restricted list, are at home, there is no harm in them and are such little lambs that, if robbers were in the house, they would help pack the satchels. Those owners have a false sense of security about their dogs. If it gets off the leash and gets into a pack, the smallest and quietest dog can do serious damage as part of that pack. I am a farmer and have seen this myself. Humans might call it peer pressure or whatever, but one can see a different side of a dog when it is in a pack. I sometimes wonder if, by giving owners a false sense of security because their dogs are not on the restricted list, they are giving their dogs too much freedom and are almost in denial. They believe that their dogs are little lambs, but those dogs can be more than lambs when in company. What is Ms Creedon's opinion?

She referred to education programmes and training owners. How would that be introduced and enforced? A large percentage of dogs are not microchipped. People do not bother following through with microchipping because it is too much hassle, it is not worth it, their dogs will not do any harm or ever leave the house, it will never be an issue, there is an electric wire around their houses so their dogs will never leave the garden and no one will even know they are there, etc. Basically, they could not be bothered. Of those who go to the bother of ticking all the boxes, how many would drop off if we introduced an element of training or put more red tape or boxes to be ticked in front of them? They might say that they will not bother being trained in how to be dog owners and they will be all right. Could it have the opposite of the desired effect? I agree with and have been advocating for a process whereby getting a dog licence requires exactly what Ms Creedon set out in her submission. It should be similar to the driver's licence theory test. However, how many people who are currently microchipping their dogs would fall off the scale because they believed the new requirements would be too much hassle and they would be all right anyway because their dogs never get out and no one would know they had them?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

On the Chair's first point about dogs being pack animals and joining in in pack mentality, that is why it should be mandatory that people have a basic level of understanding of dog behaviour. A scientist, Dr. Rudolph Schenkel, studied wolves in captivity in a small enclosure in a zoo in Switzerland in 1947. He continued to refer back to dogs in his study. For example, he said that wolf A would compete with wolf C to get the most comfortable resting spot in the enclosure and, therefore, wolf A was the dominant wolf or the alpha wolf. His simple study essentially became the basis of dog training and dog understanding. In 1971 – I am not 100% on the year, so do not mark me on that – Dr. David Mech examined that study and essentially turned it into a book on wolves ecology, ethology and so on. In that book, he continued to refer back to dogs. They said that wolves competed for dominance, there was an alpha male and an alpha female, and they were pack animals. They then compared that idea to dogs and said that dogs competed for dominance and were pack animals, and that owners needed to show their dogs that they were alphas to ensure that their dogs became beta or subordinate and behaved themselves.

It was not until the 1990s that people decided to examine this idea to find out whether there was any truth in it when studying wolves in their natural habitats. They found that, while wolves in natural habitats formed packs and had alpha males and alpha females, wolves did not compete for dominance. Rather, the alpha males and alpha females were the breeding pairs and the wolf pack comprised the breeding pair and usually two litters. The wolf pack is a beautiful concept. What the wolves are doing is ensuring the survival of their pack. It is very much a case of all for one and one for all. If there is a shortage of food, the cubs will eat first. The best tracker will be the one to lead the way rather than the alpha male or alpha female, which would be the father or mother.

We saw that wolves formed packs and the concept of the pack was the survival of their gene pool, so we examined whether the same was true of dogs. We had never checked that beforehand. We just copied what Dr. Schenkel did, turned it into a book, and everyone became pack leaders and dominant over their dogs. When I got my little Jack Russell, I put a list on the fridge with things like needing to say "No" in a low, deep voice to show Pippa that we were dominant over her.

In the 1990s, people started looking at free-living dogs. This work started in Romania and was extended to Mexico and various other countries where many feral dogs were just left to their own devices. It examined whether they were competing for dominance and forming pack units. The truth of the matter is that dogs are selfish, are out for the survival of their own genes, and will interact similarly to humans. They are a social group. They enjoy the company of other dogs but do not have fixed groups. They will integrate into different groups. Dogs will compete for dominance over resources. If there is a bone, there might be a bit of growling over it and maybe Pippa the Jack Russell gets the bone. If Pippa and Sandy are then put in front of a ball, maybe Sandy wants it more and gets it.

When we are being misinformed that dogs are pack animals and competing for dominance, we are being told by default that, to have a well-behaved dog, someone must outcompete and be dominant over that dog. This leads to a great deal of punishment-based and intimidation-based training, which leads to nervous dogs and, in turn, leads to dogs that are more likely to behave aggressively.

A wealth of information about dogs is available on the Internet, in books and so on. I read stuff from ten or 15 years ago that is wrong. Much of the information that people believe to be true about dogs, including me before I started studying dogs and dog behaviour, is scientifically incorrect and ineffective. I teach dog behaviour to students who want to become trainers and behaviourists. Once they finish the course, almost all of them tell me that the feel guilty because they did so many of the wrong things with their dogs and misunderstood their dogs. Now that they understand their dogs' body language and behaviour and how they learn, they know how to care for their dogs correctly and how to understand dogs.

As to dogs forming packs and pack mentality, they are social animals and have social learning. A dog that sees another dog push open a door and get into the treats will follow suit. If one dog chases a sheep, the other dog will think it looks like fun and do the same. It is like mob mentality among humans. We do not say that humans are pack animals or competing for dominance.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is where I am coming from. I am a farmer and have seen that happen. If the chase is on, the quietest of dogs will be in the middle of it. Once they get going, they can do as much damage as the dog that started the chase.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Exactly. From a scientific point of view, other dogs are doing something, it is exciting and is getting the dog's adrenaline going. Pippa joins in on whatever the other dogs are doing and chases them. When Pippa is in her parasympathetic nervous system-dominant state – her rest-and-digest or normal, calm state of mind, behaviour, personality and so on – she is using the prefrontal cortex of her brain, which contains her memory, logic and intelligence. Your dog is your dog when they are calm. As soon as the adrenaline kicks in, though, their body will flip into a sympathetic nervous system-dominant state, which means they will start using the back part of their brain, from which impulsive, reactive and emotional behaviours are derived. It would be similar to us saying we were out of our minds with worry or were so cross that we could not think straight enough to remember the number for 999. When we are in panic mode, we are not thinking logically. Panic mode does not necessarily mean that something bad is happening. It can be a group of kids meeting Justin Bieber. It is the same thing – they are crying, hysterical and not thinking straight.

When dogs are in hindbrain mode, they are dangerous. When a pet dog is extremely wound up and other dogs are chasing sheep, that dog will also chase the sheep. It may not have bitten anything in its life, but it will be so wound up and not thinking straight it will be reactive, emotional and impulsive. Its threat interpretation is reduced and its motor control is inhibited. All of these things lead to every dog becoming dangerous when it is hindbrain mode, in the sympathetic nervous system dominance stage.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my point about dogs that are not on the restricted list in those circumstances.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Every dog. That is why education is critical.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the owner thinks that will not or cannot happen because they are okay because the dog is not on this list.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Yes. The Acting Chairman is right. People think that if they get a dog that is not on the list then it is not dangerous. That is just as dangerous as having a list of restricted breeds because it lulls people into a false sense of security.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For my information, when a dog is angry and the hair stands up, is that because -----

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Piloerection is where the hair stands up. It is the body just responding. When people get goose bumps at an audition for "The X Factor", that is their bodies going into that sympathetic mode.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are in back-brain mode at that stage.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

What happens is that the body goes into the sympathetic nervous system dominance state. You will often see humans, dogs and Taylor Swift shake it off. When you see dogs doing a shake-off if they were in the water and they are wet, then it is normal. However, if something was a stressor for the dog and its body starts to go into sympathetic nervous system dominance and the hair might be standing up at the back of their necks, you might see them do a shake-off and that is them trying to calm themselves back into the parasympathetic dominance state. These tiny things are fundamentally important. When I teach someone about their own dog, I explain the concept about what is happening and how critical it is to keep your dog calm. They know this in order that if, say, their children are playing football and the dog is getting hyper, they can bring the dog back into the house. That is one of the big triggers I see for dogs becoming reactive and biting. It is when they are having fun with kids in the garden.

I was speaking to my hairdresser earlier. Her daughter got a very bad bite from a collie when she was whizzing around on roller blades that were flashing. That will get the dog all excited and wound-up. Suddenly, a dog that would not normally bite is biting. It is an instinctual, natural behaviour for dogs to bite. Every single breed of dog will bite. Every single dog can bite. It is often suppressed when they are living as pets and they are in front-brain mode when they are thinking logically and being themselves. When they become hyper and out of control they will do things that are more instinctual for the dog. That is when my dog will become dangerous. That is when everybody's dog can potentially become dangerous. It is small things that are potential triggers and catalysts for serious bites and the more that people understand these tiny potential triggers then the more that we can stop these things from happening. That is why education is so important.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My final question was on education.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

The theory test could be done in a very similar way to that relating to the driving test. A person would go off and buy a DVD or a book, or it might all be online. It is all scientifically based. It would be basic information on why punishment leads to an increase in aggression, why dogs getting hyperactive increases the risk of bites and so on. Yes, the additional cost might turn people off but if it turns people off and they do not get dogs then that is perfectly okay with most of us because that means they are not invested enough to care to learn enough about dogs to become responsible owners. If it stops them from becoming dog owners, then we are instantly filtering out those who are not fully committed. It is more of an impulse decision.

The Acting Chairman mentioned people not following legislation, not tipping their dogs or not getting licences. That is out of my hands. That is a legal issue if they are breaking the law. Ideally, if we did have a dog bite association that could go in and flag this to the gardaí or clamp down in its own way, it could all be logged on the dog's chip. As the Acting Chairman said, not every dog is chipped. Perhaps vets could be responsible whereby every dog that comes through their doors has to be scanned. If the chip is not there, that would be reported. It would be great to have an additional licence for dogs over a certain weight whereby they would have to be tested for temperament. You could scan the chip and tell the owner their dog is over the weight and has not passed the test. You would then flag the with whomever is responsible for preventing dog bites. It is a concept and maybe it is utopian but it would be fantastic if we could do something like that.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And there is a role for vets.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Yes.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Creedon is very welcome. Her contribution was fascinating. I have learned things that I only half knew. Like the Acting Chairman, I also grew up on a farm and I have seen those dog attacks. I have walked into a field and it was like "The Last of the Mohicans". It is wild. When you see dogs attacking animals it is something that you will never get out of your head.

Ms Creedon listed fatalities and none were in breach of the Act and therefore our legislation needs to change. The legislation is flawed. We are well aware of that. Has a similar theme become apparent or a link between each one? Data is a problem, so Ms Creedon might not be able to pull a threat out.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

From speaking to a family member of one of the fatalities, I am aware that the dog had already been flagged in a significant way. It had been reported to the dog warden. I may be thinking of another case. There was a case in Wexford where a little boy was very badly mauled by a dog. That dog had been flagged to dog wardens and nothing was done about it. In the case of the family I spoke to, the dog had already killed a pony and another family dog. Perhaps the neighbours and people who knew how dangerous these dogs were did not know the proper place to report it. I have spoken to many dog wardens. They have zero training in how to assess these dogs or in any element of working with dogs professionally. I have spoken to postmen who have no training in bite prevention and similarly to An Garda Síochána, who do not know what to do or how we even start to investigate these cases. I do not know much about the second case. In the third case, of the little baby, we know the dog was initially used for hunting. Again, people knew that this dog was aggressive. The plan was that the dog was always kept outside when the baby was around. The dog managed to get in and kill the baby. If we had proper data, it would be interesting. Maybe if we had proper data then we would see a correlation. There might be a common medical issue with the dogs. We do not know. You can only speculate without the data.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We always go back to education. It is key to so many things. Ms Creedon spoke about the theory test. If there is theory test for a drivers licence there should certainly be one for a licence for a creature that is a potential killer. People do not have the education and they do not understand. I have been bitten by a dog. I could not believe it from wee Benji there; he does not bite anybody. There he was hanging off my leg, however, so he certainly does bite. People are just not nailing it when it comes to education. Are other countries doing a theory test and following through with the licence and enforcement? Is there a country which is putting in the resources to educate the population and protect dogs. If you are a dog lover, you will want to protect your dog and not do anything to harm it or for it to do anything wrong.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I do not have such a country off the top of my head. I am pretty sure that they are doing it in Switzerland. The countries where they are doing these things already have very low rates of dog bites and significant behaviour issues. They are implementing mandatory training and so on for younger dogs. It is doable. There are models that we can look at and replicate.

The Senator said she had been bitten. There is a retired lieutenant from Jacksonville in America. He is a very interesting character, and very droll. He had a lot of dog bite cases when he was working. He would investigate and was the "dog guy" of all the lieutenants. Since then, he went on to get a masters degree in veterinary forensic investigation. It is something that we should be sending people to go on. I would put my hand up to do that course. When we have a fatality, the gardaí go in but they do not have a clue. I say that in the nicest way possible. They do not know how to assess what has gone on. The dog is taken away and the dog is put to sleep. We have no data from the dog.

The child will be treated and, medically, there are ways to assess the wounds. For example, in the case the dog walker who was killed as a result of a dog attack last week in the UK, eight dogs were involved, so it is not known for definite which dogs performed which bites. Jim Crosby could get a mould of the dog's teeth, however, look at the injuries and figure out which dog did what. There are many ways in which we could revolutionise how we look at dog bites, what happens after a dog bite and how we can minimise the risk of it happening again.

The Senator asked why Benji had bitten her. In the vast majority of dog bites that happen, it will be the first time the dog has bitten. Until that point, most owners will say their dog would never bite, and then the dog bites out of the blue. Dog body language is grossly misunderstood. There are many gestures dog will make to communicate their discomfort, to request space or to start to give warning signs suggesting they are not comfortable and then they may, eventually, go on to bite. If, say, a toddler is walking towards a dog, the dog may give avoidant signals such as a head turn or it might move into a corner, and nobody might spot that. Even though the dog and the child are being supervised, the parent might not have been educated in how to understand what he or she is supervising, so he or she will turn a blind eye. The child might then follow the dog into the corner and the dog might growl. When the dog growls, which is its way of communicating it is not comfortable and that it wants somebody to step in, the dog will get a slap, be told off or be kicked out to the back garden. The dog then learns that when the baby approaches it, the humans who are meant to take care of it do not take care of it. It knows that when the baby continues to approach and it defends itself, it will get into trouble. Accordingly, babies will upset the dog and it will not want to be around babies, and the next time the baby comes along, it will not growl, because that will result in it being punished, but the motivation is still there arising from the fear or discomfort around the child, so it might do an air snap, which will really get it into trouble. If the dog is not rehomed at that stage, the next time the baby approaches, it will feel uncomfortable and fear it will get into trouble, so it will want to get the baby away from it. As a dog, the way it defends itself is by biting, and then the dog will have bitten someone out of the blue.

With minimal education, however, of even a one-hour webinar, I can teach parents how to see if a bite is imminent and how to put measures in place, such as sticking up for the dog, taking it away, praising it and giving it a treat. If the parents know that the dog is not comfortable with being cornered around the baby, they will know it is their job to protect both the dog and the baby to ensure that will not happen. I am appearing before the committee as a dog behaviour expert but I am not here for the dogs. I am here for babies and for my own children. I am here to minimise the risk of dog bites to the little old lady down the road, and to do that we need to understand dogs, given we are not getting rid of them. They are not going to go away. If we wanted to prevent all fatalities and dog bites, we would need to get rid of all dogs and that is not going to happen, so instead we need to understand them. They live in our homes.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Creedon. She talks so much sense. If you have children, you might tell them to go to the playroom to calm down because they do not always need to stay in the same room as you. The same is true of dogs. They have their own personalities-----

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Exactly.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and they have their own favourite things, and we have to respect that.

Ms Creedon mentioned supporting responsible puppy breeding. What is the best way for the State to support that? We want breeders to act responsibly.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

There is the Dog Breeding Establishments Act. To be fair, it is being implemented where it can be. It has been wonderful to see cases emerge and sentencing happen. As a nation of dog lovers, if people truly opened their eyes to see where their puppies come from and what is going on, they would not be able to cope.

On the other hand, there are responsible dog breeders as well under that dog breeding legislation, so the question is whether there should be a database of a certain level of approved dog breeders. Should there be a vetting process for gold-star breeders? Should there be one central, Government-funded website where we can be confident that the dog breeders listed are checked regularly and have been approved for X, Y and Z?

People think that because a breeder is registered, it must be following the law and it must be all well and good. Dog owners have no idea where to go to get the right puppy, and finding one is, as I said, like finding a unicorn. Perhaps there should be a State-run website that would list different tiers of breeders, for example. People will continue to want to buy pedigree dogs and that is okay too. There is no shame in buying dogs. It is about ensuring people are not putting their well-earned money into the pockets of someone who is abusing animals.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Creedon spoke about the list of restricted dog breeds. I suspect she is not a fan of these restricted lists in general. Would that be fair to say?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

They are just unscientific and ineffective. I was looking at statistics earlier that showed El Salvador has the highest rate of homicides in the world, but I would not say someone from El Salvador is going to kill me. It is a similar concept. Hundreds of thousands of dogs on the restricted-breeds list die as old, friendly, happy, family, well-loved dogs. Moreover, having a restricted-breeds list means that if someone is looking for a dangerous, aggressive or status dog, he or she will not pick a poodle but rather a dog breed on the list, because the State has told us these are scary, bad dogs that can be raised as scary, bad dogs.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From Ms Creedon's point of view, there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I very much disagree with that statement, for two reasons. Sometimes there may be something genetically wrong with a dog, whether its serotonin production is skewed or it has a brain tumour leading to it behaving differently. Sometimes dogs carry out bad behaviours - by bad, I mean unwanted or undesired - because there is something wrong with the dog. There will quite often be dogs with genetic or medical disorders that can lead to an increase in aggression.

Furthermore, saying that there is no such thing as bad dogs and only bad dog owners is, again, incorrect. I see many responsible, loving, educated dog owners who have ended up with a dog that, whether because it came from a bad puppy farm or has medical issues or because something spooked it at 12 weeks old in a way that stuck with it for life, is engaging in behaviours they do not want, not because they are bad owners but because they have found themselves in a position where something has happened, the dog needs help and they do not have the ability to help it.

There are bad people out there - we know that - and there are dogs about which, for whatever reason, something is off. The question, however, is where to report that. Dog wardens are not trained to a level to assess these dogs.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Creedon made some recommendations relating to a dog-bite prevention organisation and so on, which is laudable, but what the public will tell us is there is probably not enough legislation to deal with dog owners, rather than that we need additional means of reporting bites and so forth. What does she say to that? Is the legislation to deal with dog owners strong enough? She stated dog wardens do not know what to do. What does she think of the legislation that is in place to police dog owners?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

It would be lovely to see something fresh and brand new. I do not know what that is and I cannot say what it would be until we have the data to figure out what is contributing to these dog bites and dog attacks happening. From a legislative point of view, a theory test that applicants would have to pass before they can get a dog licence is what I would like to see but I do not know whether that is just a dream. It will always come down to education and to somebody competent needing to assess dogs that are reported as being aggressive prior to, for example, the little boy in Wexford getting attacked or the dachshund killing the baby.

We need somebody somewhere who knows what they are doing to do something. I can only do so much. I really want change to happen and I do not want this to be another issue brushed under the rug. It would be lovely to see Ireland being at the forefront and pioneering in something different. It does not have to happen tomorrow or next year.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Creedon's work is laudable. She mentioned some of the fatalities that have occurred and we are probably always only one step away from the next one. Is there any country she can point to where a good approach has been taken?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I would say Switzerland again. I think it is in Switzerland that exams have to be taken before people can get a licence, although there had previously been very few dog bites and dog attacks in that country in any case. To be fair, many countries bring forward specific legislation and then scientists respond by saying one study or another shows it will not work. Worldwide, something needs to change, and worldwide, dogs are more and more a part of the family.

Dogs are indoors much more and are interacting with the kids much more. Dogs are expected to be human much more. There is a lack of understanding of what dogs truly are, how they need to be cared for to allow natural behaviours to be expressed and how to satisfy that dog in being a dog. Again, education would be fundamental in that too, to allow the dogs to be dogs while still becoming happy, safe family members as well.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was hoping to finish up on that but I will just pick up on one thing Ms Creedon said. She said Switzerland had very few bites and incidents even before they brought in changes. Why was that?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

To be perfectly honest, I am not even 100% sure it is Switzerland. I know the information is out there. However, I did not bring it with me and I do not have a straight answer to that. If you have a population who cares for dogs responsibly, that will filter in generation after generation. With mandatory education and having to pass a test to get a licence, by default, I will be teaching my kids the right way to raise a dog. Those kids will then be teaching their kids the right way to raise a dog. It would see generational changes impacted. Right now, much of the information that all of us in this room think is correct about dogs is incorrect.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witness. Much of this has been covered. This is coming on the back of young Alejandro Miszan being mauled by a pit bull in Wexford. As the Cathaoirleach is aware, we have had two bad sheep kills in Tipperary since Christmas. Since then, there have been calls for stronger regulation around dog licensing or dog ownership and the enhanced ability of the Garda and dog wardens to investigate these cases. There is a complement of one and a half dog wardens for a county the size of Tipperary, which is crazy. Can Ms Creedon give us her thoughts on what needs to improve in dog ownership? How many dog wardens should there be relative to the population? Tipperary is the biggest inland county in Ireland and to have what is classed as one and half dog wardens is absolute madness. I know the dog warden very well. It is impossible.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

It is unrealistic and dangerous. It is dangerous for us to have such an unfortunately large population of dog owners who do not truly understand their dogs and dog behaviour and how to safely care for their dog to ensure their dog does not cause harm to others. Unfortunately, the dog wardens do not have any formal training. There is no decent training programme or rigorous testing that they go through before they are appointed to be the ringleader of keeping dogs safe in, for example, Limerick. It is too much pressure to put on one and a half people. If they are not getting the correct training, you are better off without a dog warden.

When it comes to things such as worrying sheep, dogs being out of control in public and all of that kind of stuff, the go-to answer is that it should be reported. Someone then investigates, someone clamps down, somebody gets a fine and that money is put back in to training the dog wardens again. However, that is not happening. It is expensive training and dog wardens are expensive. The only way for it to be effective is to increase the fines, and as more people get fined, that money can be channelled back in again. Educating the owners is all well and good when it comes to putting information out there. However, if you just put information out there, it is only the responsible owners who are going to watch or read that information anyway. It is people like those with their fresh, new designer breed dog who never had a dog in their life that go up the mountain and say “Oh Fluffy can go off. He is just playing with the sheep.” It often happens that people will say their dog was just playing and it is fine, without understanding what that does to the sheep. I was reading a study recently that showed that sheep will recognise the difference between a dog on a short lead, on a long lead or off lead. Just the concept of a dog being there off-lead is enough to worry the sheep as well, never mind how badly it can go.

It is all well and good to suggest more dog wardens and more education for them. There could be a dog bite prevention association or some sort of organisation headed by dog behaviour experts that then filters down through the channels, whether that is educating the dog wardens or having different representations and representatives of that organisation in the different counties and so on and so forth. If we are looking at using dog behaviour experts for this, these people have their own employment, so they can be part time and available if and when needed, but they would be educated to a level that would be able to make a difference. It is dangerous and there are massive welfare issues for the sheep, as well as financial issues for farmers. It should not be taken lightly and something needs to be done. However, resources are needed to do anything about that. More dog wardens with a decent education behind them would help. Are we going to do that?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Looking at Ms Creedon’s opening statement and the research she said she did, she claims there is no significant difference between a dog on the restricted list and those that are not on it. I would have to disagree with that. I was raised in the country and I would prefer to get a nip in the heel from a little terrier than a pit bull.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Has the Deputy been bitten by both?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been bitten by the terrier. I would try to stay away from the pit bull because I know the damage they can do.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

When it comes to the bite, the size of the dog will obviously massively impact the potential damage it can do. The size of a car will massively impact the potential damage it can do. Dogs learn what is called bite inhibition often from a very young age, which again goes back to puppy farms. If your puppy in a puppy farm is not being handled correctly during those early socialisation weeks, they are not learning proper bite inhibition at an early age. Bite inhibition is where if a dog is going to bite, it understands how much pressure. I have been bitten by a handful of dogs. I have done grooming in my past, which dogs do not like and often leads to bites.

I was once bitten by a German shepherd. This German shepherd had bad hips and I was sending him to the vet to get his hips checked. Stupidly to myself, the dog was wound up outside the vet and did not want to go in. I was called over to put what is called a ThunderShirt, which is a calming wrap, on the dog to help him settle down and the vet was going to come out. Of course, I go to put the ThunderShirt on the dog and I hold him by the hips. This German shepherd called Max turned around, took my arm and looked at me. He held my arm and looked at me. I said, “Sorry, Max.” and he let go. Do I have a mark? No. Was I bleeding? No. Did I have any long-lasting damage? No. However, I was bitten by a dog on the restricted breed list. That dog bit me appropriately in a situation where I was in the wrong. He was communicating to me “Do not touch my hips.” He gave the message clearly and used bite inhibition. I would rather have bitten by Max than by that terrier that took a chunk out of the Deputy.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference is that Ms Creedon knew the situation that that dog was in.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

No-----

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the restricted breeds catch ahold of a young child-----

Ms Nanci Creedon:

He is a restricted breed. A German shepherd is a restricted breed.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Outside the incident that Ms Creedon gave where there was something wrong with that dog’s hips, is there some explanation as to why a dog that has not shown any characteristics of, say, attacking can suddenly turn?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Quite often, a change in dog’s behaviour is usually down to a medical issue. If someone comes to me and says that their dog has always been XYZ, he is five, this has changed and there is no obvious cause, the first check is to the vet to make sure there is nothing going on with the dog medically. When we talk about dogs biting out of the blue or that a dog has never bitten before but suddenly went savage or badly mauled a child, we need those data. I need to be able to answer that question and I cannot because we do not have the data. We do not have that information. We can quite easily get it by asking the right questions and gathering that information from the witnesses and the victim potentially. I can then give the Deputy a good answer to that and we could learn from that answer.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume Ms Creedon has looked at the legislation that covers the dog breeding establishments. Should there be a single authority responsible for that?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Yes. It is time consuming and, financially, a bit of a resource is needed to be able to visit all these sites and make sure things are above board. I would love just one organisation to oversee all dog issues, whether it is breeding, making sure dogs are chipped or making sure owners of restricted breeds are following that legislation. We all know that nobody is following that legislation. The only time I see dogs muzzled on walks, unfortunately, is usually little terriers that may potentially be snappy, so the owners are being responsible and popping a muzzle on the dog. I do not see German shepherds or rottweilers muzzled. Occasionally you see pit bulls muzzled, but that is not being enforced. Hopefully, more legislation will come, whatever that legislation is. We need an organisation that will go around to enforce it. The Garda is busy. Potentially, it will be the dog wardens, having upskilled them and increasing their numbers. One body overseeing dog safety, dog legislation, compliance legislation and all that stuff would be lovely.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should restricted dogs be allowed into, say, built up areas, such as housing estates and that and be held there? There is a potential of them getting out and seriously harming an awful lot more people than if they were out in the country. I know they should be muzzled anyway, though I have seen in my native county that some of these people are walking around with their dogs with no muzzles or anything. They let some of the dogs just walk along.

They will tell you the dogs are trained and will call them. What are Ms Creedon's views on them being inside housing estates?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

If that dog is well trained, I do not see what the issue would be. In the US-----

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even without a muzzle?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

From a dog behaviour point of view, the dog's behaviour is likely to have a direct correlation to whatever is going in that dog's life. If a dog bites, we stop and look at what happened. Did that dog bite because it was over-excited, things were going on and it was chasing? Did it bite because it was being punished? Regarding whether or not a dog is dangerous, every dog can be dangerous. By having your dog as a family pet and interacting with your family and bringing that dog out on walks in parks and meeting people and other dogs, you are socialising that dog and minimising the probability of it displaying aggressive behaviours. However, if we are talking about built-up areas in terms of people getting dogs for status and choosing breeds of dog to look tough and hard, it is probable that those people will encourage aggressive behaviour in that dog, which will correlate to certain breeds showing aggressive behaviours because of how they have been trained.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a lot of talk about public awareness of this. We have seen animal rescue services taking up the slack when the Department does not. They do not have the time or resources. What more can the Department do other than give them more money? The money given in December is nearly gone the following day paying bills and all that but they are still expected to take up the slack.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

And they do and find it from somewhere.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a credit to every one of them. Everybody has them in their own area. What more can the Department do to help these organisations to get to grips with the problem?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

It always comes back to money. It always comes back to increasing funding or supports with land or resources. At the end of the day, it is going around and around. The better we educate dog owners, the less likelihood there is of the dog being surrendered and the less need there is for rescue centres. It is as fundamental as that.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Creedon for her attendance. Every dog can be dangerous. You could have the quietest dog in the world and it could bite. I have seen it myself. It could be a Bichon Frise or a collie that is after cattle. If children come into a house, the dog is not used to children and the children pull the dog's tail, the dog can nip them. You can watch all the patterns and all the things you want in the world. It depends on the environment in which a dog is brought up. All dogs should be microchipped but does Ms Creedon think DNA should be taken from all dogs as well?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

Who is going to fund that?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cattle farmers take out public liability insurance so that if our cattle break out on the road and a car hits them, we cover the cost for people who might damage their car if our animal is in the wrong but a dog can run out in front of a car and do whatever it wants or go after sheep. Generally every farmer with a dog has it covered on its farm policy but I think everyone will have to go down that road because the risk is too great. If dogs are wandering around a town and there are sheep up the road or a youngster is nipped by a dog, there must be some sort of come-back on that.

We are basically genomically testing everything so we know where cattle are from. If we are going to trace the problems if a dog goes after sheep or hurts someone - even a youngster - you need to be able to prove whose dog it is. Does Ms Creedon agree with us going down that road?

Ms Nanci Creedon:

The Deputy makes a great point. Perhaps mandatory pet insurance should be part of the legislation so that if something does happen, at least there is funding there and there are repercussions. Legally, every dog should be microchipped so it should be pretty easy to identify which dog is responsible if a dog runs out in front of a car and causes damage. You can identify that dog through being able to scan it and find its chip. That is there. That is the legislation. It is implemented and followed pretty well. Most dogs are chipped. Obviously a small population of owners are still not doing it. Is that what the Deputy is looking at in terms of us being able to identify dogs?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would go further because you will not see a dog after sheep in the middle of the night. We need a system whereby if there is blood on sheep, you could get some kind of evidence.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I guess that would work backwards insofar as if you suspect it was a certain dog, they would be able to take a blood sample.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the best will in the world, it is hard to do because there could be 100 dogs in the area and you would be scratching your head.

Ms Nanci Creedon:

I do not know much about the agriculture side of things but I do not know if funding is available whether it involves putting CCTV in certain places.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would not work. What I am saying is that if we want to have dogs, and people are paying €800, €1,000 or €1,500 for small little gougers of dogs, we should have insurance. If you are able to pay that, the other parts of it would not over-rob you.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another vote is taking place. Everyone has answered questions. I know Ms Creedon is going to the airport so I thank her for her attendance. Does Senator Daly wish to continue with the next witnesses?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will let them put their opening statements on the record.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will suspend the meeting while the other witnesses are coming in.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Rural and Community Development. A vote is taking place in the Dáil but we will carry on while we wait for our colleagues who are Deputies. The witnesses may read their statements into the record and some of the Senators will ask questions. We will then be rejoined by the Chair and our colleagues from the Dáil.

At that the outset I have some housekeeping to do. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

Before we begin I bring to the witnesses' attention that witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said in a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair’s direction. Witnesses should follow the directions of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in committee meetings when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.

Today's agenda is to discuss dangerous dog breeds and sheep worrying. For the second session, we are joined by the Department of Rural and Community Development which is represented by Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer, and Ms Catherine Burns, assistant principal officer; and from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Eoin Ryan, senior superintending veterinary inspector, animal welfare division; and Dr. Mary McCarthy, principal officer, animal health and import policy division. I invite the representatives from Department of Rural and Community Development to make their opening statement.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I thank the committee for inviting us here this evening to discuss the Department’s role in relation to dog breeding establishments and dog control. I am a principal officer in the community division of the Department of Rural and Community Development. I am glad to be accompanied this evening by my colleague, Ms Catherine Burns, assistant principal officer. Our colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are also present and will set out their role in a separate statement.

I will describe the Department of Rural and Community Development’s responsibilities regarding dog breeding establishments and dog control. Legislative and policy responsibilities under the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and Control of Dogs Act 1986 transferred to the Department of Rural and Community Development from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government in July 2017 when the Department of Rural and Community Development was formed. Since the transfer of these functions, the Department of Rural and Community Development has carried out several reviews of this area of work to try to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose; to seek to make improvements where appropriate; and, importantly, to promote responsible dog ownership. I will talk more about these activities later.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 regulates the operation of dog breeding establishments, DBEs. It requires, for example, that local authorities establish and maintain registers of DBEs and prohibits the operation of unregistered DBEs. The Control of Dogs Act 1986 provides for the licensing and control of dogs and also provides for the protection of livestock from worrying by dogs. Operational matters in respect of both Acts are the responsibility of the local authorities and I will cover this a little later in my address. I will set out the key work the Department of Rural and Community Development carries out in the area of dog control. The Department publishes annual statistics on local authority dog related activities. These cover, for example, information on stray and unwanted dogs, dog licences, enforcement actions, and the operation of local authority dog shelters and dog breeding establishments.

The statistics are available on the gov.iewebsite and statistics for 2022 will be published later this year and are being collated at the moment. I can, however, give some examples of the type of information we gathered in 2021.

One area of reporting is the number of dog licences issued in the State. In 2021 201,146 were issued. The annual dog licence and general dog licence are valid for one year while the lifetime of a dog licence is valid for the dog’s lifetime.

On good news, the statistics contain some welcome trends. For example, the number of dogs euthanised in 2021 in local authority pounds was 168down from, for example, 1,674 in 2016. This continues the year-on-year annual trend in the right direction in the decline in the number of dogs being euthanised, down from just over 21,000in 2002.

We also collate information on dog breeding establishments, DBEs. The number of such establishments in 2021 was 245, which includes 92 commercial dog breeding establishments, 83 hunts clubs and 49 commercial boarding kennels. The remainder comprises animal welfare shelters and training kennels.

In respect of these statistics, it is the Department’s intention in 2023 to begin to interrogate the statistics provided by local authorities more rigorously than in previous years to ascertain where more focus could be brought on any local issues or trends that need attention. That is an overview of the Department of Rural and Community Development's work in the area but in order to provide the committee with a full picture of the work carried out on the control of dogs and dog breeding establishments, I will briefly set out the roles of other arms of Government with responsibilities in this area.

The key responsibilities here lie with the local authorities. The most important aspect of work relating to dog control happens on the front line. The local authorities are key in this regard and are responsible for all operational matters to do with dog breeding establishments, including the licensing, monitoring and inspection of those establishments and, where a serious and immediate threat exists to public health or animal health and welfare, for the closure of such establishments.

Key to this session here is that local authorities are also responsible for the enforcement of certain legislation in this area. For example, under the Control of Dogs Acts local authorities have the power to issue dog licences, appoint dog wardens, provide dog shelters, seize dogs, impose on-the-spot fines and take court proceedings against dog owners, where appropriate. We in the Department of Rural and Community Development co-operate closely with the local authority veterinary service to ensure that we do what we can to support the vets in their work.

We in the Department of Rural and Community Development also have a close working relationship with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I am glad that we are joined this evening by our colleagues from the animal welfare division. That Department is responsible for the Animal Health and Welfare Act and it oversees regulations around the sale, supply and advertising of pet animals, including dogs. My colleagues from the Department, Mr. Eoin Ryan and Dr. Mary McCarthy, can provide additional detail in this regard.

Recently, together with our Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine colleagues, a working group on the control of dogs was established. Mr. Ryan will expand on this group shortly. This group was formed on foot of a request from the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, further to recent unfortunate incidents where serious attacks happened and were carried out by dogs who were not under effectual control. The dreadful attack on Alejandro Miszan, aged nine, is a recent example and it is good to see him begin his recovery after a terrible ordeal for him, his family and friends.

On our work to improve DBEs and the conditions in dog dealing establishments, we have a close relationship with both the local authority vets and dog welfare groups, and we became aware of the need to tighten up on the operating standards of DBEs in Ireland. Improvements to the lives of the puppies in these establishments can make for better socialised dogs and therefore more suitable pets.

Back in January 2019, revised guidelines for the operation of DBEs came into effect, further to a public consultation. They now form part of the framework within which local authorities carry out inspections and issue improvement and closure notices, where required. The new guidelines saw a shift in focus towards the welfare of dogs and pups in DBEs, placed emphasis on the need for accurate record keeping by DBEs, and set the level of staff to breeding bitches at a ratio of 1:25. This was a key shift from the original guidelines, which did not stipulate a ratio.

As part of our drive to review and improve legislation in this area, work is ongoing in the Department on a review of the legislation and proposed amendments to both the Dog Breeding Establishments Act and the Control of Dogs Act. On DBEs, we are considering, for example, strengthening the enforcement regime by introducing additional penalties for offences and allowing for fixed payment notices. We are also proposing additional amendments to ensure local authorities can inspect deregistered premises and seize dogs, when warranted, due to welfare and other issues. Under the Control of Dogs Acts we are considering a new provision to allow for dog control notices, that is a notice issued to a dog owner whose dog has been found to be out of control.

As part of our objective to promote responsible dog ownership, we produced and published a consultation report, A review of measures relating to the control of dogs in Ireland, following a public consultation to which more than 1,000 responses were received. As a result of this review, the Department intends to more actively promote a culture of responsible dog ownership in Ireland. This will include supporting information campaigns regarding responsible dog ownership and progressing measures involving primary and secondary legislation.

We also intend to introduce increased penalties for the offence of livestock worrying which continues to be an issue in our rural areas and there have been some very recent cases in the past number of days which we have become aware of. Some 217 instances of livestock worrying were reported to the local authorities in 2021, with 241 reported in 2020. There have been recent very serious and damaging attacks which we are aware of, together with the upset and loss that these attacks can cause to farmers across the country.

All the work we do in this area, the reviews of the legislation, the revised guidelines and the stakeholder consultation, is done with an overall view to the promotion of responsible dog breeding and ownership in Ireland. Dogs bred in DBEs are now more likely to receive individual attention and be socialised properly before going to their homes. At that point, however, responsibility transfers to their owners. We know that dog ownership brings great benefits, physical and social, but it also brings with it a responsibility.

Another part of our Department has responsibility for the Embracing Ireland’s Outdoors - National Outdoor Recreation Strategy 2023-2027, which was launched last November. As part of the communications plan around the strategy, there is the intention to develop and deliver a communication campaign to promote a culture of responsible dog ownership in outdoor recreation. This will complement the work already carried out in this area.

Dogs must be kept under effectual control, in particular around livestock. Dogs should never be left free to roam and pose a threat to the livelihood of our farmers. Each year during lambing season, we in the Department of Community and Rural Development have spearheaded communications campaigns, seeking to inform dog owners of the risks of leaving dogs unattended.

As I mentioned earlier, we are seeking to increase the level of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. We will continue to do our part, along with colleagues in the local authorities, the local authority vets, and in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to consolidate efforts in this area, and to promote the message of responsible dog ownership. The work of the new dog control working group will be key in this regard, and, as I said previously, my colleague, Mr. Eoin Ryan will expand on that in a few minutes. I thank the committee for its attention. My colleagues and I are happy to respond to any questions that it may have.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Geraghty. I call Mr. Ryan to make his opening statement now. We will then have questions from members.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

I would like to thank the Chairman for this opportunity to address the committee on the topic of dangerous dog breeds and sheep worrying. I am joined this evening by my colleague, Dr. Mary McCarthy, principal officer, who is responsible for animal health and import policy division. The Department has responsibility for five general areas relating to dogs: the pet sales register; pet passports; the movement and trade of dogs internationally; the microchipping of dogs; and the provisions of the 2013 Animal Health and Welfare Act, which applies to dogs. I will discuss these areas in more detail shortly.

On the issue of the control of dogs, the Ministers, Deputy McConalogue and Deputy Humphreys, established a working group on dog control recently, as outlined by my colleague from the Department of Rural and Community Development. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine chairs and provides the secretariat for this working group. Two meetings of the working group have been held already, with a third meeting to be held tomorrow afternoon.

While policy responsibilities for dog control and dog welfare lie with separate Departments, the expectation is that this group, involving those officials working on dog issues across different areas, will enable us to take a co-ordinated approach to these issues. In practice, there can be a considerable degree of overlap between policy issues such as dog control, dog welfare, sheep worrying and other related public concerns.

The Department has an important role on dog welfare, in the context of its overall responsibilities for animal welfare. The Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 was introduced after public and stakeholder consultation, and with the legislative expertise of this committee.

The Act updated and consolidated existing legislation, modernising it in line with newer knowledge and understanding of animal welfare. It provided a regulatory framework for the welfare of all animals and assigned specific responsibility for animal welfare policy to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It provided a strong basis for many positive developments. As our understanding of the welfare needs of animals expands, the legislative framework continues to accommodate the development of strategies and actions to further enhance animal welfare.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has a strong history of supporting the welfare of animals. Animal welfare has never had a more important place in terms of policy, resources and practical implementation. The Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, enables the Department to regulate and support animal welfare through concrete, tangible measures. The Department has well in excess of 200 authorised officers who carry out welfare inspections in every county and are out on the ground every day, providing advice and support to the keepers of animals. Members of An Garda Síochána as well as ISPCA and DSPCA inspectors are also authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. In addition to being able to offer advice and expertise, the Animal Health and Welfare Act ensures that authorised officers have the legal basis to issue improvement notices and compliance notices, which in the majority of cases are very effective. People are rarely intentionally cruel or neglectful, and most animal welfare risks can be resolved before they become critical. When necessary, legal sanctions are imposed, and prosecutions are taken when other efforts to ensure compliance have failed or there is blatant disregard for an animal's welfare. To date, 121 successful prosecutions have been taken under the Animal Health and Welfare Act, of which 90 relate to dogs. A number of other investigations are ongoing.

In 2021, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, launched Working Together for Animal Welfare,Ireland's Animal Welfare Strategy 2021 to 2025. This is Ireland's first stand-alone animal welfare strategy. It is a living, action-focused strategy, responding to priorities raised by stakeholders during extensive dialogue and consultation, and reflecting the significant animal welfare commitments in the programme for Government. Real progress has already been made.

Delivering on the strategy and in response to the programme for Government commitment to advance initiatives on responsible pet ownership, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, has established a new independently chaired advisory council on companion animal welfare. Independent members with a range of expertise and experience have been appointed. The council is up and running and provides advice on policy matters and where appropriate will issue guidelines and recommendations in relation to companion animals. The strategy acknowledges that animal welfare is a complex and evolving concept which can mean different things to different people. Perspectives on animal welfare are influenced by both science and values, which explains why there are often diverging views in society and sometimes between scientists. This council, therefore, is a critical stakeholder grouping which will assist the Department in prioritising and advancing policy initiatives relating to companion animals.

Other key actions of the strategy include the establishment of the first chair in animal welfare and veterinary ethics at UCD's School of Veterinary Medicine, support for One Health, One Welfare-focused research, and the development of initiatives to promote responsible animal and pet ownership including through education.

The Department acknowledges the valuable work done by animal welfare organisations. Our officials work closely with many of them every day. Since 2002, the Department has financially supported eligible NGOs, and what started as a modest scheme has grown exponentially, with record assistance of €5.8 million awarded by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to 99 animal welfare organisations last December. Of this, almost €4.7 million went to 73 organisations directly supporting canine welfare, and the Department has thus met the programme for Government commitment to double funding within two years. This funding recognises the importance of the role such charities play in education, awareness raising and dissemination of knowledge to improve animal welfare. This is particularly relevant for encouraging responsible pet ownership, which can help to reduce the number of dogs abandoned or surrendered to charities. The Department's animal welfare grants include funding provision for the appointment of officers authorised under the Act, nine of whom are officers of the ISPCA and four are officers of the DSPCA.

The Department has responsibility for the Microchipping of Dogs Regulations, 2015. The primary policy objectives of this legislation were: to protect the welfare of all dogs; assist in uniting stray dogs with their owners; to act as a deterrent for those who abandon dogs; and assist in identifying marauding dogs. All dogs of more than 12 weeks old must be microchipped and the possession, movement, sale or supply of an unchipped dog is an offence. This helps to ensure the security and improves the chance of safe return if a dog is stolen. The system is effective in helping to reunite stray or lost dogs with their owners and is recognised among EU member states as an excellent model. Data indicates a high level of compliance, with more than 700,000 dogs microchipped since 2017, including more than 122,000 registered in 2022. Among the conditions of funding for recipients of the Department's animal welfare grants, animal welfare organisations must ensure that all rescued and re-homed dogs are microchipped.

The four approved database operators are required to provide details of the microchip data they hold to Europetnet, a Europe-wide umbrella group of associations which registers owner information for microchipped pets. Europetnet identifies to which database a microchip has been registered, and that database can then be contacted. Microchipping regulations can be enforced by any officer authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act including officers of the Department, An Garda Síochána, dog wardens, members of the local authority veterinary service, customs agents and inspectors of the ISPCA and DSPCA.

The Department is responsible for the Animal Health and Welfare (Sale or Supply of Pet Animals) Regulations 2019. The regulations apply to anyone selling six or more pets in a calendar year. Sellers and suppliers must register with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine giving premises details. Sellers' names, registration numbers and county information are published online. Anyone registered under the Dog Breeding Establishment Act 2010 is not required to further register with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine as a seller or supplier of pet animals. Advertisement of a dog for sale or supply must include minimum information about the seller, origin, age and microchip number. The Department is in contact with microchip database companies and online platforms to enable easier and more reliable verification of microchip numbers.

The Department has responsibility for policy on the movement of dogs into and out of Ireland, including intra-community trade and movements to or from third countries. In 2022, some 29,706 pet passports were issued, of which 27,379 were to veterinary practitioners and 2,330 to animal welfare charities. The majority of these relate to dogs.

A number of these policy areas have recently been considered by this committee which published a report on issues impacting dog welfare in Ireland in October 2022. A Private Members' Bill, the Animal Health and Welfare (Dogs) Bill 2022, is currently before the Seanad and contains proposals related to some of these points. Department officials are considering these carefully as well as listening to the opinions expressed by stakeholders on these topics.

I will conclude by re-emphasising that the Department operates a confidential, dedicated animal welfare helpline through which members of the public can report concerns about the welfare of any animal by phone or by email. The helpline can be contacted at 01-6072379, or by email at animalwelfare@agricuIture.gov.ie. The Department received 1,251 animal welfare reports in 2022. Each report is followed up by a Department official or an ISPCA or DSPCA authorised officer.

I hope that I have given members of the committee a good overview of the Department's responsibilities in respect of dogs and our role in the newly established dog control working group. My colleague and I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials of both Departments. I have some points to put to them. I am conscious that we are dealing with dangerous dog breeds and sheep worrying. That is the heading we are dealing with. I thank the officials for the concise way in which they laid out their submissions. They were circulated to the committee members and we have discussed them.

I will first deal with questions in regard to the Department of Rural and Community Development. On page 4 it states that the Department’s intentions in 2023 are to interrogate the statistics provided by local authorities more rigorously than in previous years. That is interesting language, the terms “interrogate” and “rigorously”. I would have thought they were always rigorous. The Department has identified there is a need to do this, and I welcome that. Why now? What makes the Department need to be rigorous now? Is there something it knows or is concerned about in regard to the returns it is getting from the local authorities? That is one point.

There is a good deal of emphasis on local authorities’ responsibilities. They are huge. This monitoring situation crosses a number of Departments. Are the officials satisfied that there is sufficient finance, resources and skillsets in place within the local authorities to carry out this work? What have they done to further support local authorities in that important work? Is it appropriate that the local authorities should have to take as much of this responsibility? Would the Department advocate that one department or one focus group should deal with these issues?

The officials state that a working group on the control of dogs has been set up. This was initiated or requested by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin. What is the timeline for the delivery of this working group? Is it weeks or months? What are the terms of reference? When is it going to deliver? When is it going to report and when will positive actions come as a result?

That is on page 5 of the Department's opening statement. The Department of Rural and Community Development states it intends to increase the penalties for livestock worrying. Will Mr. Geraghty set out what is the Department's vision and intentions? What will it recommend? On page 8 of the opening statement a communications campaign and communication strategy are mentioned. Will Mr. Geraghty share with us some of this communications strategy? If not today perhaps he might send it to us. I am not convinced about the communications campaign and strategy as of yet but there may be something coming that we do not know about and I would like to hear about it.

Mr. Geraghty spoke about the new dog control working group and said that it will be key in this regard. Yes it will but we need to know what is happening. I will leave Mr. Geraghty with these few points and I ask him to be as concise as possible in his replies.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I thank Senator Boyhan and I will try to take questions in order. With regard to the statistics, as has been pointed out by the committee previously we have always focused on the accurate collation and publication of statistics in a timely manner. Recently we were challenged as to what we do after this. This year we have written into our business plan for the unit that we will put more focus on the interrogation of the statistics to see whether local issues or trends emerge on which we can work with local authorities as far as we can to help them with enforcement.

With regard to local authority finances, resources and skillsets, the dog warden service and the veterinary service are paid for out of the Vote of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is then a matter for the local authorities to decide how they apply their resources locally. They are obliged to have at least one dog warden in each local authority area. After that it is matter for the chief executive and workforce planning. With regard to what the Department has done to build these skillsets, we run regular training events and networking days for veterinarians and wardens to get them together to share good practice. This is an intervention made by the Department.

Senator Boyhan asked about the increase in penalties for livestock worrying and there are two elements to this. There are the on-the-spot fines, which the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is very keen to increase from €100 to €250. There are also the fines that are applied by the courts. At present the ceiling is €2,500 and the Minister is keen to increase them. This will require an adjustment to the primary legislation.

I will ask my colleague from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Ryan, to expand on the control of dogs working group with regard to timelines and delivery. Senator Boyhan also asked a question about-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The communications campaign and strategy. Will Mr. Geraghty share this with us?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I suggest we share the detail at a later date. What we did previously was rerun the Bonzo campaign from the 1980s. This was a television advertisement that had a significant impact and seemed to gain some traction. There have also been some social media campaigns. We will share more detail in due course.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Geraghty has said this will be at a later date. When does he have in mind? I apologise for cutting across. Does the Department have the strategy? Is it still working on it or does it have it?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I will hand over to Mr. Ryan. This is part of the deliberations of the working group.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Geraghty is telling the committee that he is not in a position to do so or that he does not think it is a good idea to share it with us just quite yet.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

No, not just quite yet.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we talking about in a month's time?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

We are talking very soon.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Less than a month?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

We are talking in the coming months.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Geraghty. I will push on with questions for Mr. Ryan. I thank him for coming before the committee. I want to be concise. I was a bit taken aback by something on page 4 of the written submission of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I have several questions to ask but I also have a comment to make. According to the opening statement, "People are rarely intentionally cruel or neglectful, and most animal welfare risks can be resolved before they become critical". I dispute this and I am somewhat surprised to see it stated by the Department. We know of very substantial cruelty that goes on and it is intentional. There is a lot of cruelty to animals, be it livestock or domestic pets, and we see it all the time. We get a lot of representations on it. It is somewhat surprising that an official in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine would go to the extent of setting this out in writing. It is just a comment and I am not asking Mr. Ryan to reply. I was genuinely shocked by it. It raises the question as to where is the empathy in this issue. I want to leave that with Mr. Ryan to think about.

The Department's opening statement mentions the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and the Working Together for Animal Welfare strategy. It is a good strategy.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise but I must ask Senator Paul Daly to take the Chair again.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was speaking about the Working Together for Animal Welfare strategy that goes from 2021 to 2025. We are halfway through the strategy. What is very important is that it has five segments or elements. These are: working in partnership; evidence-based policy making; improving education and knowledge; consistent project evaluation; and assessment and effective regulation and legislation. It is a very good strategic document. Perhaps it is now due a revamp. Much has been achieved under it. I acknowledge this and I thank the Department for it. I have a suggestion that I ask Mr. Ryan to take back to the Department. It is a good strategy and much has been done. The message should be sent out that a lot has been achieved. Perhaps there should be another interim review. I acknowledge it and it is very important. As Mr. Ryan said, it is a stand-alone policy document to which the Department can refer.

My next question relates to page 5 of Mr. Ryan's opening statement, which states the four approved database operators are required to provide details to Europetnet of the microchip data they hold. Nothing more is said about this, which is interesting in itself. Will Mr. Ryan tell us a little bit about it? Are they compliant with all of it? Is the Department impressed by it? Is there more that could be done on it? Are there shortcomings in it? What is the professional observation of Mr. Ryan and the Department?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

I will begin with the earlier question on the working group that Mr. Geraghty passed over to me. The terms of reference are to be finalised along with the timelines for delivery. What I can say is that we have already had two meetings and our third meeting is tomorrow. We are moving along with it. When the terms of reference are finalised they can be shared.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for cutting across. Two meetings have been held but there are no terms of reference.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

Correct.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not told this in the document. We have learned this through forensic questioning. We are told the group has met twice but there are no terms of reference.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

The terms of reference are being finalised.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have not been finalised and the group has already started meeting.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

Yes. It is one of the things we have discussed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ryan has made the point. It would be likely that the terms of reference will be due out very soon.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

Very soon.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There must be draft terms of reference.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

We can expect them to be finalised quite soon.

Senator Boyhan's point on the strategy is well made. We try to emphasise that it is a living and changing approach. Senator Boyhan is correct that we are halfway through the strategy, which is traditionally an appropriate time to reflect on what in the strategy has worked and what may need to be updated. It is a well-made point and it is something we are also considering. It comes under the heading of ongoing evaluation as part of the strategy. Senator Boyhan's comment on an interim review is well made.

Senator Boyhan asked a specific question about the database operators. To some extent we are constrained by time in the opening statement. There is a lot more data and information on the Department's website on how the microchipping regulations work. I am certainly happy to send them on. We can send on more details subsequently through the clerk. To be brief, one of the conditions of authorisation of a database operator is that it must share the data it has with a larger database called Europetnet. The purpose of this is that if a lost or strayed animal is found the microchip can be scanned and entered into the Europetnet database. Those with dogs at home can enter their dog's microchip number to see it. It will state what database the dog is registered on. This enables someone to contact the database directly to find further details. There is compliance from the four database operators with this and we are satisfied.

Regarding the Senator's question about whether there are things that could be improved regarding micro-chipping regulations, there are always things to improve and we are engaging with stakeholders on that. When the micro-chipping regulations were introduced, they were quite innovative and new and are regarded as a model across Europe, but there are things many stakeholders feel could be improved so we are looking at that.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all our guests for their very detailed submissions. The first issue I wish to raise involves dog breeding establishments, DBEs. This committee produced an animal welfare report while the DSPCA recently called for the DBE regulations and legislation to go to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Do Mr. Geraghty and Mr. Ryan support that being in the one Department? It would also make inspections easier. We would prefer to see independent inspectors. I have gone through the control of dogs annual statistics. It is amazing that it is 2023 and we still do have a digital statistic report. Will this happen? When you try to compare each year and each local authority, there are disparities across the country and it is a postcode lottery as to whether local authorities are carrying out regular inspections of these DBEs. There seems to be some consistency in some local authorities. It is when they apply for a new licence or to renew an existing one that the inspection happens. I would like to see an independent inspectorate - preferably through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - so the bar is the same regardless of where you are in the country and the inspector is independent of the local authority and uses the same consistent standards. I would like to hear the witnesses' feedback on that.

I do not mean to be rude but I wish to raise concerns about the better socialisation we have. It is probably better than what we had before we brought in the DBE legislation but a ratio of 1:25 is insane. It is insane to think that one person can look after 25 breeding bitches, and this does not include their pups. The shelters have a ratio of one person to six dogs regardless of the age of the dogs. I know we are here today to talk about dangerous dogs and sheep worrying. One thing that keeps getting said involves poorly socialised dogs that are not being handled. We heard previously from a dog behavioural expert but even the shelters will say that dogs are being surrendered at pounds because they have poor behaviour and resource guarding - all those behavioural issues that are red flags. Equally, if people cannot surrender their dogs, the dogs might be just abandoned and then go on to cause problems, particularly in rural areas. What analysis is being done on the impact of mass producing dogs with inbreeding, poor socialisation and the consequent impact on dog attacks?

I am heartened that there will be a deeper dive into some of the statistics. We hear anecdotally from shelters why people are surrendering dogs but there should be a more scientific approach to that. We should be collecting this data so we can see what percentage of dogs are being surrendered because of the housing crisis, because landlords will not allow tenants to keep them, people have fears because their dogs are on the list of dangerous breeds or are manifesting unwanted behaviours, or their dogs are old and owners have medical bills. Is any analysis of this taking place? Why are dogs being surrendered and for what reasons?

The behavioural expert who appeared before us previously spoke about the importance of responsible dog ownership, training for people who want to get dogs, how it is far too easy in this country to get a dog and how people will go to a shelter and because the shelter does due diligence, if they are not happy with that or do not meet the bar, they go and get a dog from an online advert. What are the witnesses' views about having some sort of mandatory training for people in addition to an education programme? In the North, if someone wants to get an exotic pet, he or she must have training and be able to demonstrate he or she knows how to look after an exotic pet. If they can do it for exotic pets, why can we not have something similar for dogs - even if it is just for certain breeds?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I might take one or two questions and then pass over the questions that are more relevant to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We had a previous conversation about the ratios. The feedback we get from local authority vets is that the ratio is a bit of a blunt instrument or crude measurement. Some dog breeding establishments have a high degree of automation, which would in theory free up the people who work there to spend more time with the dogs while others do not so there is wide variation in terms of how people working in dog breeding establishments have adequate time to work on the socialisation of pups. There is that variation.

I take the point about the digitisation of the statistics. It is time that happened and the Department of Rural and Community Development is looking at that. I might let Mr. Ryan speak about behavioural issues. The working group will consider training around responsible dog ownership. It sounds like a sensible measure.

Regarding more detailed statistics and reasons for the surrender of dogs, I would be interested in hearing an expansion of those ideas so if the Senator would like to submit them to the Department separately, we will consider them.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

The Senator's point about the need for research is a good one. It is important for policy to be informed by evidence and research to provide a wider context. I referred to it briefly in my opening statement. The Department does fund a considerable amount of research into animal welfare. We funded the post of professor of animal welfare in UCD and a number of specific research projects on animal welfare in different sectors, including the charity dog shelter sector. I am not aware of any specific research on risk factors for re-homing dogs, which is exactly the sort of thing that would be useful. Now we have more support for animal welfare research and more animal welfare researchers, I am hopeful this is the sort of thing we can do better on. We have the research funds and this professor is working on it so it would be useful.

The working group will consider responsible dog ownership but this is already something under consideration. It is not a new idea. I referred earlier to our new advisory council on companion animal welfare. It meets regularly and is composed of a number of stakeholders from across that sector. This is one of the things it is considering. The idea concerns the messages we should convey and how we can convey them effectively. The advisory council will be advising the Minister on this. Many of the key players are involved in that. There is no simple answer but involves a number of initiatives. The dog control working group will take a lot of those messages from the advisory council on companion animal welfare on board because many of the same experts are involved.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that the ratio is a crude measure but I have heard the same said about capping the number of breeding bitches. I have concerns about Mr. Ryan's statement that automation improves socialisation. The behavioural expert made the point, which makes sense, that it is about introducing dogs to different environments and noises and being handled more. We know that when dogs go into shelters, they can become quite stressed, including my own dog. The noise of so many dogs in the environment can stress the dog out. There are professional organisations that have over 100 breeding bitches and the accompanying pups.

That is a lot of noise and a very stressful environment for a dog. The point is that the ratio is crude but it is about reducing the number of dogs onsite and increasing the number of people who are able to handle the dogs and get them used to different environments. Does the Department accept that? We know from the shelters that dogs get stressed just by the sound of having a lot of dogs around them and being cooped up. That is what is happening in dog breeding establishments, DBEs, even if they have automation to clean out the kennels and feed the dogs.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

It is important to say that there are some very reputable and professionally run DBEs and we need people to purchase dogs from these reputable institutions, as opposed to other operations that do not have any sort of regulation whatsoever.

I cannot speak to the impact of noise on dogs but my colleague is a vet and he can expand on that. I take the point in regard to the ratio. We are hearing from various stakeholders that they would like consideration of a further reduction in the ratio.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

It is widely accepted that socialisation is critical for dogs and there is a critical period, when they are puppies, when they need to mix with other puppies, but also with people and have other stimuli. If that window is missed, one can end up with quite a fearful and nervous dog, and anybody who is familiar with dogs will understand that. One of the benefits of having animal welfare research is that we do not just have to rely on anecdotes or our own knowledge, and we can refer to published research that supports that. That is one of the reasons it is important to promote responsible dog breeding and not the less savoury types that we talk about.

It is an issue that people, sometimes with the best will in the world, are not aware that the dog they get has not been socialised, particularly if they are not that familiar with dogs or might not be as interested in this as some of us are. That is why it is critical to promote this issue. Responsible pet ownership is not just about one area, and it is also about what to look for when getting a puppy and to be aware of what the puppy needs. I know many of the stakeholders already carry out awareness campaigns and many NGOs are quite active in this area, so there is no shortage of information. The question is how, collectively, we can convey that information to people in an effective way so they will take it on board. That is the challenge. That is why we are hopeful that between the Advisory Council on Companion Animal Welfare and our working group, we will work out effective ways to do it. I do not think there is a single solution or a magic bullet, and it is probably about general societal change and increased appreciation of the needs of dogs.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to follow on from Senator Boylan. We know the Department of Rural and Community Development has responsibility for breeding. What I am hearing from Senator Boylan is that it is a dog welfare matter. What link is there with the checks and balances that the welfare section is putting on dog breeding establishments? To me, automation seems cruel and while it is convenient and dogs might have a clean place, it is a sanitised environment where they are not seeing people. Where does that link up in this entire area? I would see that as being a big problem in regard to the quality or happiness of the dog we end up buying as a potential customer.

I want to home in on several questions, and these are more for the Department of Rural and Community Development. There are the issues of rural affairs and of local government. The Department of Rural and Community Development does the policy and all of that, and then gives that to the local authorities, which have to come up with the budget. As an example, we do not have enough dog wardens. Has the Department of Rural and Community Development ever said that, clearly, to have 1.5 dog wardens is not good enough for two counties and that ratio is not substantial enough? Does it ever say “We are the experts here, we are the policymakers”? Has there ever been an ask from the Department to local government to say that it is going to have to up its game because what is happening is against the Department's policy, it is not good for dog welfare and the local authorities are not adhering to the standards that the Department of Rural and Community Development is putting out?

I am from the Cooley Mountains, which is probably one of the most beautiful parts of the country, and it has many walkers and fantastic walks schemes. The Department of Rural and Community Development is responsible for those walks schemes and working with local farmers to ensure those schemes are upheld. At the moment, many people bring their dogs and take them off the lead. What if farmers start reneging on those commonage rights on walkways? Does the Department of Rural and Community Development start listening at that stage and say “We cannot fall back on our walks schemes because that is not good for tourism, so we might have to start listening to farmers”?

Has it been suggested that dogs do not go on commonage because they are lethal on commonage? Every single Monday or Sunday evening, I see on a local Facebook page something like “My wee pet Benjy ran away and is now missing”, and asking everyone to try to find this dog. No one is talking about the fact that dog is a wild animal and is going to need to survive. How does a dog survive? It survives by hunting.

We are not focusing on public awareness. The Department mentioned the “Bonzo” ad but it is not on television at present and is only on social media; it is not as impactful as it was before. Has the Department considered banning dogs from commonage areas? That is an ask from local farmers because they are losing stock. It is an animal welfare issue when sheep are dying on the mountains or birds nests are being unearthed because a dog is running feral on lands for days on end.

I want to ask about cross-Border co-operation. I am sure Deputy Carthy is well aware of the lack of co-operation and the difficulties with Northern dogs, for want of a better description, and the inability to link up with the authorities, North and South, which seems to be a big blockage in our enforcement locally. Maybe some local authorities are better than others but, at a national level, has there been co-operation between the ministries, North and South, and also guidance for our local authorities to be able to deal with that?

The witnesses referred to networking and training days. Is that for dog wardens? Is any of that compulsory training? I support Senator Boylan's ask about training dog owners and potential dog owners, linking that to the licensing requirements and putting a little money and time into digitisation of the entire licensing process. Louth County Council has online licensing but it did that itself - it paid for it itself and it worked on that all by itself, in conjunction with other local authorities, with no direct help from the Department. Local authorities are doing this and they are not getting support, and there is no definite linkup between the microchipping and licensing. It is illegal not to microchip a dog but has anybody been prosecuted for that? I have many other questions but I will leave it there.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I will take those questions in order and, again, I may refer to my colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. As to whether there been an official ask to local government in respect of additional funding, not that I am aware of from our Department. I would imagine it is the City and County Management Association that would make that approach on behalf of the chief executives, CEs, of local authorities.

With regard to walkers and walking, we have responsibility for the national outdoor recreation strategy in our Department as well. A range of stakeholders are involved in putting together that strategy. Some detailed submissions came in in respect of the issue the Senator raised. All dogs should be kept under effectual control at all times.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was the question I missed. Is Mr. Ryan going to review that term?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

I can do that if the Senator wishes. At the moment, the legislation states that all dogs should be kept under effectual control. As the Senator will be aware, there is a list of restricted breeds that have particular control measures that apply to them with things like muzzling and a short leash, and somebody over the age of 16 has to be in control of the dog and so on.

The Senator mentioned the “Bonzo” advertisement. Our feedback is that it is still quite impactful. Maybe it is a bit of nostalgia or something but some of us remember it from the first time around. We intend to go further than social media this time with our communications campaign around responsible dog ownership.

I cannot speak to cross-Border co-operation. My colleagues may have a little bit more on that in respect of the relationships they have around pet selling and so on. The Senator asked us whether the networking and training for dog wardens was compulsory. It was not compulsory but it was very well attended just the same. There was a national event in Tullamore in 2022 that was open to all local authority dog control personnel, including administrative staff, dog wardens and veterinarians. We had representatives from agriculture and animal welfare groups including the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, Dogs Trust Ireland, the Irish Blue Cross, Mutts Anonymous Dog Rescue and Adoption, MADRA, and so on in attendance. There were presentations on the day.

With regard to the national outdoor recreation strategy I mentioned, there was a presentation on sheep-worrying and livestock attacks by somebody from the Irish Natura And Hill Farmers Association. There was also a presentation on restricted breeds and social housing units. I fully acknowledge the Senator's point regarding Louth County Council. It is an exemplar in this area and does fantastic work. We are aware of it. In respect of microchipping and licensing and cross-Border co-operation, I will hand over to colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I thank the Senator for the questions. There is considerable cross-Border co-operation between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and our counterparts in Northern Ireland. We would have regular scheduled formal meetings where we discuss a range of issues, including animal welfare. There is also a considerable informal co-operation where we regularly contact each other when issues arise. Certainly, we have fairly close co-operation on our side with our counterparts in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

With regard to the microchipping regulations, the enforcement can be done by any officer authorised under the Act such as representatives from the Department, the gardaí, members of the local authority veterinary service in whichever county it is or officers of the ISPCA or the DSPCA. Our understanding is that very few prosecutions have been taken. It is usually in the context of other larger welfare issues. There may have been other offences and that was one of them. There is not centralised reporting of enforcement issues for that because they can be taken by the local authorities.

I am not sure whether I can speak to the licensing issue because it does not come under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I have my own experience, of course, of dog licensing with my own dog. However, I would not like to make a reply on that because it is not our area.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise if I ask something that has been covered. We have been coming in and out to vote in the Dáil

It is fair to say that the issue of dog welfare and dog control probably is not something the majority of people wake up thinking about every morning. It is not a high-profile issue per se. Because of that, it is frustrating when we are dealing with it. For example, tonight we are dealing with two separate Departments and another Department is also involved in the issue. Without being flippant about it, this is not big enough to cross three different Departments. The first thing we need to do is streamline. Of course, there are things only local authorities can do effectively. In terms of legislation and the different penalties that are in place and all of that, however, it could, and should, be streamlined within one Department. I have seen media reports and heard suggestions that there is an ask for the dog control unit in the Department of Rural and Community Development to be moved to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Can the officials give me a sense as to whether they agree there is a problem here?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I thank the Deputy. I can take that in part. Ironically, we may have to split the question.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course you will.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

In terms of the focus on these issues, I assure the Deputy that both Departments and Ministers take it seriously. The working group my colleague described is certainly a renewed collaboration and renewed focus on this work, which is important.

With regard to streamlining into one Department, the group is there to consider everything and all the issues around this. Nothing is off the table for discussion. Ultimately, it will, of course, be a matter for the Ministers in the final analysis. We would discuss-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the working group on the control of dogs.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

Yes.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that working group examining all the animal welfare, and particularly dog welfare, legislation is or is it very much about the control of the animals?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

It is examining the recommendations of this committee, among other things. Some of the committee's recommendations speak to what the Deputy mentioned and, therefore, they will be on the table for discussion.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have a view on this?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

With regard to the Deputy's point on the importance of dog control and welfare, society is increasingly paying more attention to it. We certainly see that ourselves but even outside whoever is here tonight, society is more and more aware of and concerned for dog welfare. That is a good thing. Certainly, it helps support some of the initiatives that probably do need to be taken to improve dog welfare. There is more and more awareness of the needs of dogs whether it is socialisation or other things they need. Even around the responsibility of taking on a dog, there is more and more awareness now that this is a serious thing to take on and consider. That is to be welcomed. We see that right across our engagement with stakeholders and with society.

With regard to the issue the Deputy raised about the possible revision of interdepartmental arrangements or departmental responsibilities, that decision will have to be taken at a political level. Discussions are ongoing but no decisions have been taken. The working group on dog control will be looking at all these issues related to dog control, and dog welfare is part of that. As we said, it is related on paper. They can be separated. In reality, on the street and in real life in a field, dog welfare and dog control are interrelated. That is one of the reasons that the working group involves a number of different groups across Departments. As the Deputy pointed out, it does not fall neatly into one category or another. It is important to address all of these together. That is generally the consensus. When we listen to a lot of stakeholders, they make these points that while we can divide policy areas up quite neatly for the purposes of discussions like this but when we get out there, they are very interrelated. That is why we need this co-ordinated and coherent approach and that is what we are hoping to deliver.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not disagree with anything Mr. Ryan said regarding the increase in public consciousness. When I say that this matter is too small to cross three Departments, that is not to say it is not important. In fact, I would argue that it is too important to cross three different Departments. That is why I believe fundamentally that there is a problem even with accountability. I welcome the fact that representatives from the Department of Rural and Community Development are present. Technically, they are under no obligation to appear before the committee because it is not their sectoral committee. Yet, it is an area of work in which this committee has been doing much research and we have held a number of hearings. We recognise that we have to get this right because we have been getting it wrong for too long. Many of the issues we have been addressing have not been resolved and are ongoing. Part of the problem must be that there is not a singular focus within a particular Department with a line Minister who is directly responsible for all these matters.

The working group needs to move in that direction. I accept, however, that at the end of the day it will be a political decision. That needs to happen. Are there representatives of local authorities on the working group? If so, are they CEO level staff or elected representatives? How does that representation manifest?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

We have two County and City Management Association, CCMA, representatives. One is from the local authority veterinary service and the other is from the dog warden service.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a timeframe for that group to complete its work?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

The expectation is that the timeframe will be very short for this working group to deliver a report. It will be a matter of weeks.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If ever one wanted to put the word "shortly" into the name of legislation, it would be in the Title of the Dog Breeding Establishments (Amendment) Bill because I have been hearing the word in connection with it for a long time. The heads have been in preparation in every legislative agenda since at least autumn 2020. When will the heads of Bill be published? Do we have a timeframe? "Shortly," says he.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

There is renewed focus on all of the work here and I think my colleague in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has referred to that too. Our business planning for this year will take all account of all the requirements here. It will, therefore, be "shortly". We do not underestimate the importance of this work and we are agreed on that in both Departments.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to try and tie down "shortly." In that instance, are we talking weeks or months?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

Months. I need to be realistic with the committee.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. I prefer to have an honest answer. Are we talking before the summer recess?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

That is the intention.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of livestock worrying was one of the catalysts for the Chair's suggestion that we have this meeting. The figures I have showed 217 reported incidences in 2021. Is that correct? Do we have figures for 2022 yet?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

As per the statistics we gather from the local authorities, the figure of 217 is correct. We do not yet have figures for 2022. They will be published in the next couple of months as we gather them from local authorities.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would those figures be considered a fairly accurate reflection of the number or is it possible there are other incidents?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

It is absolutely likely that there are incidents of sheep worrying and attacks on livestock that are not reported to the local authorities. We know anecdotally that sometimes things get sorted out locally and might not necessarily be reported to the local authority. Although we cannot put a figure on it, the incidence of livestock worrying is higher than the statistics we have to hand would suggest.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I grew up in a town and my interaction with farmers has primarily been in my role as an elected representative. In recent years, I have been taken aback by the impact that a sheep attack can have on the farmer and their family. It is a devastating experience. It can really cause turmoil in the some of the hardiest men and women you could meet. We need to ensure we are seen to be taking this matter as seriously as is warranted. I think it was Mr. Geraghty who mentioned that increased penalties were being considered. Will that take the form of a regulation or will new legislation be needed?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

There are two things there. The first is the on-the-spot fines, which can be increased with regulations.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they currently €100?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

They are up to €250. I know the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is very keen that those fines be increased. There are also the fines that can be applied by the courts when a prosecution takes place. They are currently capped at €2,500. It is our attention to increase that ceiling to €5,000. That does require an adjustment to the legislation.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to let in Deputy Fitzmaurice in case there is another vote in the House. I can let Deputy Carthy back in later.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I missed the beginning of the meeting due to a vote. What thoughts do the witnesses have on banning dogs from going up mountains while ewes are on them before lambing? There is a huge danger with ewes in lamb.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I mentioned earlier that all dogs are supposed to be under control at all time. That is the law.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know but they are not.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I know they are not. I also mentioned the national outdoor recreation strategy for which our Department has responsibility. I think Senator McGreehan raised this issue but we have heard many stakeholder concerns about dogs going up mountains. It is an issue. As Deputy Carthy said, the upset that attacks can cause is extraordinary. We have heard the stories and they are very stark and very upsetting.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Department look at that?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

All dogs should be under control. It is the law.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but will the Department look at the problem?

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

Everything is up for discussion. Does the Deputy have a specific response in mind?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Generally, ewes are heavy in lamb from January-February until May if it is a mountain area. That is four of five months when it is deadly dangerous if there are dogs. Even if ewes see a dog while being heavy in lamb, they can turn over. It is deadly dangerous. The Department might look at that.

I want to keep going because I want to let Deputy Carthy back in and we could have votes. We have cattle dogs, sheep dogs and dogs in the house that would not look at cattle or sheep. Any dog can bite, whether it is the smallest fella or the biggest fella. A dog can never be trusted. I am not a believer in all of these courses I am hearing about. The next thing we will people doing a course to own a cat. I would like to know the thoughts of both Departments on this. People are paying huge money for dogs in the house. We are doing it ourselves at home. I am a firm believer that it should be mandatory for people to have public liability insurance for their dog. If a dog goes after sheep, there should be a fallback. This is the way I look at it. Farmers have to have public liability for their cattle. It is one of areas they are covered for. The dogs are generally covered with that scheme. However, there are so many dogs now and I would say there is no cover for them. If people are prepared to pay €800, €1,200 and €1,500 for a dog, they should be prepared to pay for insurance cover. I am not looking for the type of insurance that covers vets like they have in England, or anything like that. I am saying that basic public liability insurance should be mandatory. I ask the witnesses to look at that.

People will say that my second suggestion will cost a few quid, and it will, but every dog should be on a DNA register. It is the only we will nail down which dog went after which sheep. There will always be blood left. Near to me in Ballymore, there is a guy who has sold the last of his sheep. He got rid of them. He had to go to the factory with them and they were all heavy in lamb. I saw the devastation that has caused. Last year, a friend of mine had sheep up in Killkerrin where his uncle gave him a bit of land. About 50 sheep were pulled apart. It is not only the ones that are dead. The ones that are maimed are the worst of the lot. Some of them have to be put down. Some of them will survive, but the flock is just ruined because they have been run and the fear is in them forever. That is the danger. If we want to have these animals as pets for some people or as working dogs for others, and if we are able to pay big prices for them, we should be able to afford cover for them. The Department should look at that.

Anyone's dog can go. We can give out about a dog running after something. With the best will in the world, the batteries on the control collars people put around their dog's neck to keep them from going beyond a certain radius in the garden can run down. The dog can then go off and when dogs go together these things happen.

We will not be foolproof - no one thinks we will - but we should have precautions in place. A big problem is that some of these things happen at night. We do not have a clue what dog did what. Farmers lose money and hope their insurance will cover the loss. The dog has gone home and there is not more about it. The dog might be hidden if they know it was at it. Those are the facts. We need to take a proactive approach because of the harm being done. I ask the departmental officials that when they are looking at the new legislation to consider those two matters, we must nail them down. That is all I have to say.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Fitzmaurice was making points rather than asking questions.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the witnesses might want to include my points. There is no point in making points in here all our lives and nothing happening.

Mr. Paul Geraghty:

I have seen the idea the Deputy mentioned about mandatory public liability insurance raised elsewhere. Some stakeholders have flagged it. This is one example of the benefits of having our advisory council on companion animal welfare where one of the organisations flagged that and of listening to stakeholders' opinions. There are many layers to that idea but it is certainly one of the points that has already been suggested. The point is well made.

I have concerns about the technical feasibility of the DNA testing of dogs and how straightforward or not it might be to identify the DNA of a dog involved in a sheep attack. I can see the purpose behind the idea.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Laboratories are able to test all calves that are born for bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD and the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, will come in. There is no reason we cannot do this if we are committed to doing it. Tracing a dog from a sample is doable. It is also possible to do it for horses. We must make this foolproof. The day is gone of a dog running around without a microchip and people not knowing whose dog it is, as there is too much at risk for the farmer. We need to be firm about this. We can make all the excuses in the world that we cannot do something but there is one thing we can do. It might cost a few quid. I have talked to laboratories about it and it is workable to do it and put it up on a database. If we can get forensics from other things, we should be able to get forensics from the sheep.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree we must have a system under which, at a minimum, dogs can be identified. In the first instance it is done via the microchip. The opening statements stated that 700 dogs have been microchipped since 2017. Do we have a figure for the total number of dogs that are microchipped and more importantly the number that are not?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

The figures we provided were the number of dogs microchipped since the regulations came in. I do not have the figures for the number of dogs that were microchipped prior to that. For instance, my dogs were microchipped before the regulations came in. Perhaps the Deputy is getting at the proportion of dogs microchipped as a percentage of the population.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

We do not have a figure for the total dog population. I referred earlier to the research the Department is funding on animal welfare generally and on dog welfare specifically. As part of that research, a study was published by UCD last year in the Irish Veterinary Journalwhich set out various ways to try to estimate the dog population by looking at things such as the microchip and licensing databases and various different ways. The study was unable to come up with a firm number, but our sense is that there is broad compliance with the microchipping regulations. As regards where we want to go, there was a reference earlier to updating the regulations. They have been out for a few years now and it probably is timely to listen to some of the stakeholder feedback on how we can make them more effective and drive compliance even higher. Our goal is to increase compliance with microchipping further than it already is. Our sense is that there is generally good compliance.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must move to a point, not where there is increased compliance, but where every dog is microchipped. If a dog is impounded and it is not microchipped, it should not be released until it is microchipped. When dog wardens are going about their business - I agree with Senator McGreehan's point that there are not enough dog wardens - they should be able to check immediately when walking past a dog, whether it is microchipped. That is the only way we will get to a point where we have full compliance. It is important.

I always say the dogs in my area are all republicans as they do not recognise the Border. The witness mentioned that regular cross-Border meetings are held and that discussions on this matter are part of those. What is the engagement on this specific issue? How often is it raised as a formal item on the agenda and what, if any, outcome has there been from those meetings between the Department and the Executive or Northern Ireland Office, NIO, representatives?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

When we have our regular meetings we talk about a range of items, including trade, and animal health and animal welfare is a large part of that. We talk about policy challenges in animal welfare, areas of co-operation and if there are specific areas, because we know one another and have relationships, while we have formal meetings, we do not necessarily wait until the next formal meeting to contact our counterparts or they might contact us directly. That is the way it happens because we have built relationships and we see one another on a regular basis. That makes it easier to either contact or be contacted about animal welfare issues as they arise.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We spoke about a few legislative changes. Were there discussions about trying to align legislation, especially when we had an Executive in the North?

Mr. Eoin Ryan:

Discussions are more at a veterinary technical level than a political legislative level. Typically we discuss areas such as disease control, disease eradication and animal welfare issues that are arising. We often face the same issues across the different jurisdictions. It takes place at that level. Interaction at the higher political level such as deciding on the contents of legislation is a separate issue.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming to the session this evening. As they will be aware, there has been a lot of media attention on this issue. The two points I would like them to consider going forward are public liability insurance for dogs, which is essential, and being able to identify dogs. Those are the two issues the witnesses should take from the committee this evening that I hope will get the issues under control.

That concludes our discussion on dangerous dog breeds and sheep worrying.

The Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine will meet at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 February 2023 to examine the Revised Estimates for 2023 in respect of Vote 30 and to consider Committee Stage of the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Bill 2022.