I believe some one stated earlier, that pitbulls weren't needed in this country anyway, because there were other bullbreeds, that is an interesting point would we like to expand on what that means exactly.

So, bcs aren't needed because there're other sheepdogs.
Labs aren't needed because there're other retrievers.
Jrts aren't needed because there're other terriers.
Greyhounds aren't needed because there're other sight hounds.
Malamutes aren't needed because there're other sled dogs.

It took 40 generations to turn a wild animal into a domesticated one. 40. That's all. To take wild animals who are scared of humans, who will attack or cower depending on the particular animal and to turn them into an animal who craves human touch, who rolls over and plays with humans. It completely changed the foxes: their coats, their ears, their tails, their way of interacting with people. 40 years to completely change everything an animal is.

Do you really think it would take centuries to breed out ONE characteristic from a dog? It didn't take centuries to breed it in, after all. You're just exaggerating and trying to defend your position in support of the DDA with little to no facts.

What im saying is, you have to be a good dogman to handle dogs like pits and alot of other bullbreeds, thats why they is a ban on certain breeds because the wrong people had them, not everyone is the right type of person to own a bullbreed. if you know what i am saying. can anyone tell me why they was banned in the first place as i cant remember...

I believe some one stated earlier, that pitbulls weren't needed in this country anyway, because there were other bullbreeds, that is an interesting point would we like to expand on what that means exactly.

One isn't needed because of the existence of another similar to it.

So, bcs aren't needed because there're other sheepdogs.
Labs aren't needed because there're other retrievers.
Jrts aren't needed because there're other terriers.
Greyhounds aren't needed because there're other sight hounds.
Malamutes aren't needed because there're other sled dogs.

Of course they've all bitten/attacked/killed some one, somewhere at some point in time, so lets just ban the lot of them, the world will be a safer place, and hey, its not like they were needed anyway.

As ridiculas as that sounds, it is probably quite true, many breeds of dogs aren't needed, as most no longer do the job they were bred for. However, they are wanted, and that is what matters.

Saying to someone they don't need a pitbull because there're sbts, is like saying to someone they don't need a bc because there're rough collies. The fact is, yes there're sbts, and rough collies, but they aren't pitbulls or bcs, and if people want a pitbull or a bc, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have the choice.

I really do find the continuous support of a law that clearly hasn't made even the slightest bit of a positive difference quite baffling.

The only things this law has done are:

Prevent responsible dog owners from owning/promoting the breeds, in the correct manner. Because lets not kid ourselves here, the dog fighters and other undesirable people who shouldn't own them, already do, and don't give a toss about the law.

Cause a hell of a lot of confusion with regards to what may or maynot be considered type. Remember, as has been pointed out several times now, 2 legal breeds could create an illegal type. Like wise, a pitbull crossed with say, a gsd, could create perfectly legal offspring, because remember, illegal types are only judged on appearance, not behaviour, so if it doesn't look like a pitbull, but has the temperament of one, than no problem.

Condemn perfectly legal breeds, or the offspring from some crossbreeds, to destruction, or months in kennels because they look illegal/dangerous, not because they actually are.

Never mind the amount of money, that has been and continues to be wasted, on this joke of a piece of legislation. Some people stated on another thread about how the money that was used to create a dog park could have been better spent elsewhere, well, whilst I agree, the amount spent there, is nothing compaired to the amount spent trying,and failing to inforce this law. I'd rather the money was used on improving education, health or public transport, at least then it might be put to some good use.

Its funny, because the asbo is now on its way out, to be replaced with god knows what, but anyway, its going because, it wasn't working as well as they hoped it would, therefore, not worth continuing to spend money on it. Yet, the dda, hasn't been working for 19 years, but still they continue to spend money on it, why?

Pit bulls are not needed here because they are crossed with god knows what to make ''the ultimate dog'' if you care to read back to my last previous post. Any breed is subject to the DDA so what hope do dogs from those sort of breedings have once their ''history'' can be proved?
If anyone cares to see my dogs paperwork more than happy to send it on, lets see how far someone else gets to see what else was used in there

As gentle and as good as my own dog was, I'd hate to think of the damage that could have been inflicted had my dog woke up one day and decided it was having a bad day.



None of the above breeds are banned.

None of the above breeds are banned.

I believe some one stated earlier, that pitbulls weren't needed in this country anyway, because there were other bullbreeds, that is an interesting point would we like to expand on what that means exactly.

One isn't needed because of the existence of another similar to it.

So, bcs aren't needed because there're other sheepdogs.
Labs aren't needed because there're other retrievers.
Jrts aren't needed because there're other terriers.
Greyhounds aren't needed because there're other sight hounds.
Malamutes aren't needed because there're other sled dogs.

Of course they've all bitten/attacked/killed some one, somewhere at some point in time, so lets just ban the lot of them, the world will be a safer place, and hey, its not like they were needed anyway.

As ridiculas as that sounds, it is probably quite true, many breeds of dogs aren't needed, as most no longer do the job they were bred for. However, they are wanted, and that is what matters.

Saying to someone they don't need a pitbull because there're sbts, is like saying to someone they don't need a bc because there're rough collies. The fact is, yes there're sbts, and rough collies, but they aren't pitbulls or bcs, and if people want a pitbull or a bc, then why shouldn't they be allowed to have the choice.

I really do find the continuous support of a law that clearly hasn't made even the slightest bit of a positive difference quite baffling.

The only things this law has done are:

Prevent responsible dog owners from owning/promoting the breeds, in the correct manner. Because lets not kid ourselves here, the dog fighters and other undesirable people who shouldn't own them, already do, and don't give a toss about the law.

Cause a hell of a lot of confusion with regards to what may or maynot be considered type. Remember, as has been pointed out several times now, 2 legal breeds could create an illegal type. Like wise, a pitbull crossed with say, a gsd, could create perfectly legal offspring, because remember, illegal types are only judged on appearance, not behaviour, so if it doesn't look like a pitbull, but has the temperament of one, than no problem.

Condemn perfectly legal breeds, or the offspring from some crossbreeds, to destruction, or months in kennels because they look illegal/dangerous, not because they actually are.

Never mind the amount of money, that has been and continues to be wasted, on this joke of a piece of legislation. Some people stated on another thread about how the money that was used to create a dog park could have been better spent elsewhere, well, whilst I agree, the amount spent there, is nothing compaired to the amount spent trying,and failing to inforce this law. I'd rather the money was used on improving education, health or public transport, at least then it might be put to some good use.

Its funny, because the asbo is now on its way out, to be replaced with god knows what, but anyway, its going because, it wasn't working as well as they hoped it would, therefore, not worth continuing to spend money on it. Yet, the dda, hasn't been working for 19 years, but still they continue to spend money on it, why?

Pit bulls are not needed here because they are crossed with god knows what to make ''the ultimate dog'' if you care to read back to my last previous post. Any breed is subject to the DDA so what hope do dogs from those sort of breedings have once their ''history'' can be proved?
If anyone cares to see my dogs paperwork more than happy to send it on, lets see how far someone else gets to see what else was used in there

As gentle and as good as my own dog was, I'd hate to think of the damage that could have been inflicted had my dog woke up one day and decided it was having a bad day.



None of the above breeds are banned.

I think you missed the point, many posts have been about SBT's being around and problems associated with them, and PBT's should not be legalised again for that reason.
All those other dogs are legal, but why not make them illegal to the same reason, some have given as there are other breeds to replace them, not such a good reason now is it

Excellent post



The argument about a pitbull being crossed with who knows what - how many mongrels are in rescues and homes that are crosses of who knows what so maybe we should ban all mongrels or maybe just mongrels over a certain shoulder height or muzzle length? After all why do we need mongrels we have plenty of other breeds to choose from - surely anyone can see the ridiculousness of that statement I have just typed

My own dog a collie woke up in a bad mood one day an d attacked my face and my throat - I received hospitalisation, plastic surgery and still bare the scars perhaps we should ban all collies as I doubt that he was the 1st Collie to bite a child or adult

None of the breeds that Tazer mentioned are banned that is correct however I believe Tazer was using these breeds to demonstrate the point that there are several breeds of dog which are bred(originally) for a similar or identical task. So where do we stop...these days very few people have dogs and use them for their original purpose - I am not saying it doesn't happen. Some people probably don't even know what there chosen breed was originally for.

So you wholeheartedly agree with dogs being crossed and people not being aware of the truth, facinating. That's my whole point, it matters not that they shouldn't be here, they are here and people do exactly as they want to do with them...Breeding them to god knows what.



Had my own dog decided to wake up one day and decide to have a go attacking my face and throat I would have been dead, there is no way I would have got the dog off, simple. Thats the difference - though it's hypothetically speaking as the dog was nothing but good.
Wonderful we have people agreeing that these dogs are being crossed and people have no right to be told the truth.

you dont have to rule with an iron fist an American Pitbull Terrier is a dog and dogs respond well to potive training methods. I have always found (limted experience i admit) bull breeds respond very well to good training.




Cant remember what number we are on but fantastic post



You are right pitbulls are not needed here but they are wanted by many and those who want them should have that choice. The current law is dangerous.

any dog can be dangerous not just a "pitbull type", secondlyI am a bit confused as to the last point you make as in the UK an APBT has never been a recognised breed and therefore is a cross I suspected maybe wrongly, that if you were to obtain a Pit here you knew that what you were getting was essentially a cross as it is not a recognised breed and this is the same for many other crosses which can be legally obtained in this country. You can essentially deliberately breed two aggressive(human or dog) dogs together here and as long as they don't carry there head in a certain way or their tail a certain way and there muzzle is not a certain length and they aren't over a certain height then hey its ok to have that dog it's not illegal thats where the law is flawed you can have pups from the same litter that grow up to be different sizes one is deemed pit and the other is not - thats the madness.

If we are talking about APBT in the staes then yes it is considered a breed and then yes I guess you can end up crossing what is considered to be a pure bred(the pit) with a who knows what to produce a cross but I do not understand why that is any different too the large bitza that is advertised as a rescue or that i s bred due to accidental mating or any other scenario that results in a litter of pups from two different breeds or crosses. People purchase dogs or obtain dogs and do not know the truth, as you put it, about their heritage.

If someone could legally obtain a pit in this country and wanted it because they were a responsible bull breed enthusiast then surely like any enthusiast of any other breed they would select their chosen pup from responsible and good breeders to further the breed, yes a minority would still BYB theses dogs in the same way that they do other breeds which have temprament and behavioural as well as physical problems and that will not change because a breed is legal or illegal.